^ 


>^S  '^- 


I  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY, 

%  Princeton,  N.  J. 


BS"   A13     .B58    V.  A 

Ernesti,  Johann  August,  1707 

-1781. 
Principles  of  Biblical 
interpretation 


zi^. 


6    f 


THE 


BIBLICAL  CABINET 


OR 


HERMENEUTICAL,  EXEGETICAL, 


AND 


PHILOLOGICAL  LIBRARY. 


VOL.   IV. 


ERNESTrS  INSTITUTES. 


EDINBURGH : 
THOMAS  CLARK,  38,  GEORGE  STREET; 

J.  G.    &  F.  RIVINGTON,  LONDON  ; 
AND    W.    CURRY,    JUN.    &    CO.,    DUBLIN. 

xMDCCCXXXIII. 


PRINCIPLES 

OP 

BIBLICAL 

INTERPRETATION 

TRANSLATED  FROM  THE 

INSTITUTIO  INTERPRETIS 
J.   A.   ERNESTI, 


CHARLES    H.  TERROT,  A.M. 

LATE  FELLOW  OF  TRINITY  COLLEGE,  CAMBRIDGE. 

VOL.  n. 

EDINBURGH: 

THOMAS  CLARK,  38,  GEORGE  STREET. 
MDCCCXXXIII. 


J    niOMSON,  IRl.NTEH,  MILNE  SgLARt. 


pElKGEw^^       ^, 


CONTENTS. 


PART  THIRD. 

OF  THE  HERMENEUTICAL    APPARATUS, 
AND  ITS  PROPER  USE. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Page 
CONCERNING  THE    BOOKS   OF    THE  NEW  TESTA- 
MENT, THEIR  AUTHENTICITY,  GENUINENESS, 
DISTINCTIONS,  &C 1 

§     1.  Of  the  Authenticity  oi  the  Books  of  the  New 
Testament. 

2.  Of  Doubts  respecting  the  Authenticity  enter- 

tained by  the  Early  Church. 

3.  Of  the  Controverted  Books. 

4.  Of  the  Authenticity  of  the  Greek  Text. 

5.  Of  the  Substantial   Genuineness  of  the  Greek 

Text. 

6.  Of  the  reported  Corruption  by  Anastasius. 

7-  Of  the  means  whereby  the  Genuineness  of  the 
Text  has  been  preserved. 


VI  CONTENTS. 

5  8.  Of  exaggerated  expressions  respecdng  the  Cor- 
ruption of  the  Text. 
9.  Varieties  in  the  Text  of  little  importance  to  the 
sense  of  Scripture. 

10.  The  Integrity  of  Scripture  confirmed  by  varie- 

ties in  the  Text. 

11.  Of  the  Xature  of  this  Integrity. 

12.  Cases  where  Conjectural  Emendation  is  allow- 

able. 

13.  Substantial,  not  Verbal  Integrity,  to  he  main- 

tained. 

14.  There  were  no  di\-isions  in  the  Autographs  of 

the  Sacred  Books. 

15.  Divisions  were  introduced  at  an  early  age. 

16.  Of  the  Ammonian  and  Eusebian  divisions  of  the 

Gospels. 
17-  Of  the   Euthalian   Division   of    the   Acts   and 
Epistles. 

18.  Origin  of  the  Modem  Chapters. 

19.  Verses. 

20.  Of  the  Marks  of  Punctuation. 

21.  Of  Breathings  and  Accents. 

22.  All  these  divisions  and  marks  being  compara- 

tively recent,  are  of  little  authority. 


CHAPTER  II. 

Page 
OF  MANUSCRIPTS  AND  THEIR  USE         ....       25 

5     1.  The  Autographs  of  the   Inspired  ^^'^iter3  have 
perished. 
2.  Of  the  supposed  duration  of  the  Autograph  of 
St.  John's  Gospel 


CONTEXTS.  TV. 

3.  Of  the  evidence  of  TertuUian  in  this  matter. 

4.  Causes  of  the  early  disappearance  of  the  Auto- 

graphs, 

5.  Of  3Ianuscripts  Collated  and  Uncollated. 

6.  Of  the  Vatican  and  Alexandrine  Manuscripts. 

7.  Of  the  Codex  Parisien^is,  Sec. 

8.  Of  the  Vienna  and  Basle  Manuscripts, 

9.  Few  of  these  contain  the  whole  of  the   New 

Testament.    Note  (z)  on  the  Classification  of 
Manuscripts. 

10.  The  same  Manuscript  has  often  several  names. 

11.  Of  31anuscripts,  which  are  copies  of  other  ex- 

isting Manuscripts. 

12.  Of  Manuscripts,  some  are  merely  Greek,  others 

Graeco-Latin,  and  some  merely  Lectionaries. 

13.  Of  the  Alteration  of  Greek    M5S.,  according 

to  the  Latin  Version. 

14.  Of  the  Causes  and  Instruments  of  this  alteration. 

15.  Of  the  Subservience  of  the  Alexandrine  to  the 

Roman  Church. 

16.  The  alterations  had  not  taken  place  in  the  time 

of  Oriffen,  nor  in  that  of  Euthalius. 
17-  Of  the   Cause  of    Discrepancies    between   the 
Greek  Text  and  the  Latin  Version, 

18.  In  cases  of  Discrepancy  the  Greek  is  to  be  pre- 

ferred. 

19.  Manuscripts  are  to  be  judged  of  by  their  Age 

and  Goodness. 

20.  How  to  determine  the  Goodness  of  a  Mantiscript. 

21.  Unjust  Partialities  to  be  guarded  against. 


Vm  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Page 
OF  EDITIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT        .       .  47 

§     1.  Of  the  Origin  of  the  Printed  Editions. 

2.  Of  the  Aids  employed  by  the  Editors. 

3.  and  4.  The  same  subject  continued. 

5.  Of  the  Primary  Editions. 

6.  The  Compiutensian,  A.  D.  1514. 

7.  The  Compiutensian  Text  repeated  by  R.  Stephen, 

A.  D.  1546,  and  by  others. 

8.  Of  Erasmus^  First  Edition  in   1516,   and   the 

succeeding  ones. 

9.  The  Erasmian  Text  followed  by  Aldus  and  others. 

10.  Of  Beza's  Editions,  A.  D.  1565. 

11.  Of  Elzevir'' s  Edition,  A.  D.  1624,  and  the  nume- 

rous editions  formed  upon  it. 
12  Of  BengeVs  Edition,  A.  D.   1734,  and  note  b.  of 
the  principal  critical  editions  during  the  last 
century. 

13.  Of  the  Projected  Edition  of  Bentley. 

14.  Of  the  Teoctus  Receptus  and  its  value. 

15.  Of  the  value  of  editions  in  general. 

16.  Of  the  Exaggerated  Accounts  which  the  early 

editors  gave  of  their  authorities. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

OF  VERSIONS  60 

§     1.  pearly  necessity  for  Versions. 

2.  Proofs  that  Versions  were  made  at  a  very  early 
date. 


CONTENTS.  IX 

3.  Of  the  Peshito  Syriac  Version. 

4.  Of  the  Source  from  which  the  Peshito  was  made, 

and  of  the  Persian  Version  made  from  it. 

5.  Of  the  Philoocenian  Syriac  Version. 

6.  Of  the  Coptic  Version. 

7.  Of  the  Mthiopic  Version. 

8.  Of  the  Armenian  Version. 

9.  Of  the  Arabic  Versions. 

10.  Of  the  Gothic  Version  of  Ulphilas. 

11.  Of  the  Ancient  Latin  Versions. 

12.  Of  the  old  Vulgate  or  Vetus  Itala. 

13.  Of  its  Origin  and  Name. 

14.  Of  Attempts  to  restore  this  Version. 

15.  Failure  of  these  Attempts. 

16.  Causes  of  the  Failure. 

17'  Enquiry  into  the  Authorship  of  this  Version. 

18.  Of  Jerome''s  Version. 

19.  Of  the  Principal  Editions  of  Jerome's  Version, 

or  that  which  is  now  called  the  Vulgate. 

20.  Of  later  Latin  Versions. 

21.  Of  the  Use  of  Versions  in  general. 

22.  and  23.  Of  the  Hermeneutical  Use  of  Versions. 

24.  Necessity  of  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  lan- 

guage in  which  the  Version  is. 

25.  Method  of  ascertaining  the  goodness  of  a  Version. 

26.  Exaggerated  Use  of  the  Eastern  Versions. 

27.  Versions  are  to  be  resorted  to  only  when  other 

aids  fail. 

28.  Of  the  Critical  Use  of  Versions  made  directly 

from  the  Greek. 

29.  This  Use  denied  by  Whitby  and  others. 

30.  Caution  to  be  used  in  the  Critical  Use  of  Ver- 

sions. 


X  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  V. 

Page 
OF  THE  WRITINGS  OF  THE  FATHERS,  AND  THEIR 
APPLICATION 90 

§  1.  The  Writings  of  the  Fathers  have  both  a  Critu 
cal  and  a  Hermeneutical  use. 

2.  Previous  Enquiry  into  the  Text  used  by  the 

Fathers. 

3.  Few  collected  copies  of  the  several  books  of  the 

New    Testament,   existed   in   the   first   cen- 
turies. 

4.  The  early  copies  were  generally  written  by  un- 

learned men. 

5.  Of  the  Copyists  and  other  Christian  Writers  of 

the  second  century. 

6.  Of  Origeii's  Recension. 

7.  Of  the  high  esteem  in  which  it  was  held  by  the 

Greek  Church. 

8.  Of  the  Recension  of  Lucian  and  Hesychius. 

9.  Various  Readings  are  mentioned  by  all  the  Fa- 

thers after  Origen. 

10.  Of  Interpolations  made  to  reconcile  the  Greek 

Text  with  the  Latin  Version. 

11.  Of  the  superior  authority   of  the  Greek   Text 

above  the  Latin. 

12.  Of  the  Critical  authority  of  the  Quotations  by 

the  Fathers. 

13.  Authors  valuable  in   proportion   to  their  An- 

tiquity. 

14.  Authors  valuable  in  proportion  to  their  Learn- 

ing. 


CONTENTS.  XI 

§   15.  Of  the  different  Classes  of  Patristic  Works,  and 
their  Comparative  Critical  Value. 

16.  Caution  to  be  used  in  the  Critical  Use  of  the 

Patristic  Writings. 

17.  No  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  the  silence  of 

the  Fathers. 

18.  Error  of  those  who  deny  all  Critical  Authority 

to  the  Writings  of  the  Fathers. 

19.  Of  the  Hermeneutical  use  of  the  Patristic  Writ- 

ings. 

20.  Of  Origen's  Interpretations  of  Scripture. 

21.  Of  the  Obligations  of  the  Church  to  the  earliest 

Commentators. 

22.  The  Dogmatic  as  well  as  the  Exegetical  Com- 

mentaries of  the  Fathers  are  to  be  studied. 

23.  Scriptural  Expressions  adopted  by  the  Fathers 

ought  to  be  Noticed 

24.  Cautions  to  be  used  in  consulting  the  Fathers. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Page 
OF  THE  CAUSE,  ORIGIN  AND  CHOICE  OF  VARIOUS 

READINGS 114 

§  I.  A  knowledge  of  IManuscripts,  Editions,  and  Ver- 
sions  requisite,  before  the  subject  of  Various 
Readings  can  be  entered  on. 

2.  Absurd  Objections  to  the  Science  of  Biblical 

Criticism. 

3.  General  Account  of  the  Origin  of  Various  Read- 


Xll  CONTENTS. 

§    4.  Of  the  objections  of  Whitby. 

5.  Four  sources  of  Variety. 

6.  Of  Various  Readings  proceeding  from  Varieties 

in  the  Manuscripts. 
7-   Of  the  rashness  of  Emendators. 

8.  Of  adulteration  of  Manuscripts  by  Heretics. 

9.  Of  the  goodness  of  Readings. 

10.  Criterions  of  goodness. 

11.  Of  Manuscripts  the  Old  Greek  are  most  valu- 

able. 

12.  Of  Readings  collected  from  the  Writings  of  the 

Fathers,  and  their  comparative  value. 

13.  Of  Various  Readings  in  the  Printed  Editions. 

14.  Of  the  comparative  value  of  the  different  Classes 

of  testimony  to  Readings. 

15.  Reasonableness  of  attributing  high  Critical  Au- 

thority to  the  Writings  of  the  Fathers. 

16.  Of  the  use  of  collections  of  Various  Readings. 

17.  Of  their  Critical  Use. 

18.  Folly  of  those  who  deny  this  Use. 

19.  Difficulty  of  forming  Critical  Canons. 

20.  Difference  between  Canons  applicable  to  Scrip- 

ture, and  to  other  Books. 

21.  Necessity  for  laying  down  some   Rules  on  the 

subject. 

22.  The  Antiquity,  Goodness,  and  Truth  of  Readings 

to  be  attended  to. 

23.  Comparison  of  these  qualities  with  each  other. 

24.  How  to  decide  when  the  Antiquity  and  goodness 

of  two  Readings  are  equal. 

25.  Readings  apparently  harsh,  are  more  probably 

Genuine. 

26.  Analogical  Readings  are  to  be  preferred. 

27.  Readings  supported  by  the  Fathers  are  to  be 

preferred. 


CONTENTS.  XIU 

28.  No  exclusive  authority  to  be  given  to  any  class 

of  Testimony. 

29.  The  authority  of  the  Fathers  sometimes  to  be 

preferred  to  that  of  Manuscripts. 

30.  Necessity  for  Caution  and  Modesty  in  forming  a 

Critical  Judgment. 

31.  Of  the  balancing  of  Testimonies. 

32.  Of  the  Hermeneutical  Use  of  Various  Readings. 

33.  Of  Critical  Editions  of  the  New  Testament. 

34.  Of  MilVs  Edition,  A.  D.  1707- 

35.  Of  Kiister's  reprint  of  Mill. 

36.  Of  BengePs  Apparatus  Criticus. 

37.  Of  Wetsteiri's  Edition. 

38.  Of  the  Various  Readings  collected  by  Velesius 

and  Caryophilus. 

39.  Of  the  influence  of  prejudice  in  the  Selection  of 

Readings. 

40.  How  to  avoid  such  Errors. 

41.  Much  still  remains  to  be  effected  in  the  Criti- 

cism of  the  New  Testament. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Page 
OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT   VERSION,  AND  THE  FRAG- 
MENTS OF  AQUILA,  SYMMACHUS,  &C.         .       .       146 

§     1.  Of  the  Septuagint  or  Alexandrine  Version. 

2.  Cause  of  Hebraisms  in  the  Septuagint. 

3.  Importance  of  studying  the  Style  of  the  Septua- 

gint. 

4.  The  Septuagint  has  been  applied  to  the  Illus. 

tration  of  the  New   Testament  by  the  best 
JModern  Interpreters. 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

§    5.  Of  the  several  Methods  in  which  this  has  been 
done. 

6.  Necessity  of  laying  down  Rules  for  this  appli- 

cation. 

7.  Of  the  Extension,   in  the   Septuagint,  of  the 

sense  of  Greek  Words,  in  conformity  with 
the  use  of  the  corresponding  Hebrew  Word. 

8.  The  same  subject  continued. 

9.  The  same  subject  continued. 

10.  Of  Peculiarities  in  the  Septuagint  which  cannot 

be  accounted  for  by  anything  in  the  Hebrew. 

11.  Sometimes  the  Septuagint  Version  gives  not  the 

exact  Words,  but  the  substantial  sense  of  the 
Hebrew  in  pure  Greek  idioms. 

12.  Application  of  the  foregoing  Observations,  to  the 

Elucidation  of  the  New  Testament. 

13.  The  Hebraisms  of  the  New  Testament  are  to  be 

compared  with  the  Hebrew,  through  the  Me- 
dium of  the  Septuagint. 

14.  Method   of  Applying   the    pure    Greek   idioms 

in  the  Septuagint  to  the  Elucidation  of  the 
literal  Hebraisms  of  the  New  Testament. 

15.  Of  Instances  of  Logical  Metathesis  in  the  Sep- 

tuagint Version. 

16.  Of  pure  Greek  Idioms  in  the  New  Testament, 

which  must  be  interpreted  Hebraistically. 
17*  Of  the  Concordances  of  Kircher  and  Trommius. 

18.  The  Hermeneutical  use  of  the  Septuagint  Ver- 

sion by  no  means  exhausted. 

19.  Of  other  Uses  of  the  Septuagint  Version. 

20.  Of  the  Different  I\Iethods  of  Quotation  used  by 

the  Writers  of  the  New  Testament. 

21.  Of   their    frequent   Quotation    from  the  Sep- 

tuagint. 


CONTENTS.  XV 

§  22.  Of  the  Critical  Use  of  the  Septuagint. 

23.  in  cases  where  the  Authority  of  Manu- 
scripts is  balanced. 

24.  Importance  of  using  a  good  copy  of  the  Septua- 

gint. 

25.  Of  the  Version  of  Aquila, 

26.  Aquila's  Version  generally  Literal. 

27.  Its  Hermeneutical  Use. 

28.  Of  the  Version  of  Symmachus  ;  and  Note  (n)  of 

the  Venetian  Version. 

29.  Of  the  Use  of  the  Greek  Versions  generally: 

and  Note  (f)  of  Origen's  Hexapla. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Page 
OF  THE  USE  OF  WORKS  WRITTEN  BY  JEWS       .       174 

§  1.  Of  Forms  in  the  New  Testament  which  cannot 
be  explained,  either  by  the  Hebrew  Old  Tes- 
tament, nor  by  the  Septuagint. 

2.  Of  the  most   Ancient   Jewish  writings,   as  the 

Targums,  Mischna,  &c. 

3.  Of  the  Writings  of  those  who  have  made  col- 

lections from  the  Jewish  Books,  as  Lightfoot, 
Schoetgeti,  &c. 

4.  These  Writings  sometimes  illustrate  not  merely 

Words  but  Things. 
6.  Cautions  to  be  used  in  the  application  of  the  Jew- 
ish Writings  to  the  Interpretation  of  the  New 
Testament. 

6.  Necessity  of  Specific  Rules  for  their  Application. 

7.  The  Jewish  Writers  not  to  be  applied  to,  ex- 

cept where  other  aids  fail. 


XVI  CONTENTS. 

§  8.  Of  the  Use  to  be  made  of  the  Writings  of  Philo 
and  Josephus. 
9.  Of  the  peculiar  Use  of  Philo's  Writings,  in  il. 

lustrating  the  arguments  of  St.  Paul. 
10.  Of  the  Peculiar  Use  of  Josephus. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Page 
OF    THE    INTERPRETERS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTA- 
MENT, AND  OF  THEIR  USE 187 

§     1 .  Of  the  Different  Methods  of  Interpretation  in 
the  Early  Church. 

2.  Of  Allegorical  Interpretation. 

3.  Of  Mystical  Interpretation. 

4.  Of  the  Corruption  of  this  Style  of  Interpretation. 

5.  Of  Allegorical  Interpretation  in  the  Early  Chris- 

tian Church. 

6.  Of  Grammatical  Interpretation. 

7.  Of  the  Earliest  Grammatical  Interpreters  ;  and 

Note  (z)  of  the  Catenoe. 

8.  Of  Allegorical  Interpreters  in  the  Latin  Church. 

9.  Of  Dogmatical  Interpretation. 

10.  Of  the  Mixed  Method  of  Interpretation. 

11.  Oi  Commentaries. 

12.  Oi  Homilies. 

13.  Of  Scholia. 

14.  Of  the  Question  whether  Origen  were  the  First 

Writer  of  Commentaries. 

15.  Of  the  Exegetical  Works  of  Origen. 

Hi.  Of  the  Character  and  V^alue  of  his  Interpreta- 
tions. 


CONTENTS.  XVU 

§  17.  Of  the  Homilies  of  Chrysostoin,. 

18.  Oi  Isidore  of  Pelusium. 

19.  Of  Theodoret, 

20.  Of  Theophylact. 

21.  Of  the  Scholia  of  (Ecumenius. 

22.  Of  Johannes  Damascenus. 

23.  Of  the  CatencB. 

24.  Of  Euthymius  Zigabenus, 

25.  Of  Cyrill  of  Alexandria. 

26.  Oi  Jerome. 

27.  Of  Hilary  of  Poitou,  and  Hilary  the  Deacon 

commonly  called  Ambrosiaster. 

28.  OiPelagius. 

29.  Of  the  Commentaries  of  Augustine. 

30.  Jf  the  Glosses  called  Ordinaria  and  Inter  linearis, 

31.  Of  the  Various  Systems  of  Interpretation  pur- 

sued at  the  Revival  of  Letters. 

32.  Of  the  Grammatical  School  of  Interpretation. 

33.  Of  the  Dogmatic  SchooL 
34  Of  the  Mixed  School. 

35.  Of  Beza  and  Grotius. 

36.  Of  the  Followers  of  Grotius. 

37.  Of  Writers  of  Observations  from  Selected  sources 

of  Illustration. 

38.  Of  M^'riters  of  Observations  on  Selected  Passages. 

39.  Of  Collections  from  preceding  Annotators. 

40.  Of  Collections  of  Entire  Commentaries. 

41.  Of  the  Use  to  be  made  of  Commentaries. 

42.  The  Stiident  ought  first  to  Study  some  orm  good 

Grammatical  Interpreter. 

43.  Of  Simon''s  Histoire  Critique  du  N.  T. 

44.  Of  the   Importance   of    Keeping   a   Record   of 

Difficulties. 

45.  Utility  of  perusing  Entire  Commentaries. 

46.  Propriety  of  preferring  the  Greek  Commentators. 

^   b 


XVlll  CONTENTS. 

§  47.  Utility  of  Tracing  the  Steps  by  which   Inter- 
preters arrive  at  their  Conchisions. 

48.  Little  attention  to  be  paid  to  Interpreters  who 

have  no  Qualification  but  Chissical  Learning. 

49.  Dogmatic  Interpreters  not  to  be  Neglected. 

50.  Dogmatic  Interpretation  useful  to  the  Lecturer 

and  Preacher. 


CHAPTER  X. 

Page 
ON  THE  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.      .       .    234 

§       L  Of  t)»e  Necessity  of  a  Knowledge  of  Grammar. 

2.  Subject  continued. 

3.  Same  subject  continued. 

4.  Study  of  Grammar  recommended  by  Luther. 

5.  Of  Luther''s  supposed   depreciation   of  Gram- 

matical Knowledge. 

6.  Of  the  Great  Divisions  of  Grammar,  Etymo- 

logy and  Syntax. 

7.  Necessity  of  a  Competent  Knowledge  of  each. 

8.  Of  Etymology. 

9.  Oi  Syntax. 

10.  Of  Figures  of  Speech. 

11.  Of  Barbarisms  in  the  Phraseology  of  the  New 

Testament. 

12.  Of  Criticism. 

13.  Necessity  of  Critical  Knowledge  to  the  inter- 

preter. 

14.  Dangerous  consequences  of  ignorance  in  this 

matter. 

15.  Of  the  Principal  Critics  in  the  Early  Church. 

16.  Of  Conjectural  criticism. 


CONTENTS.  XIX 

17*  Of  the  best  Critics  in  Profane  Literature. 
18.  Of  the  Critical  Apparatus. 
19-  Of  the  best  Critics  of  the  New  Testament. 
2(h  Caution  to  be  used  in  the  Emendation  of  the 
Text. 

21.  Of  Superstitious    Attachment  to  the  Common 

Text. 

22.  Error  of  hasty  and  rash  Conjecture 

23.  Sinfulness  of  altering   the    Text  on  Dogmatic 

grounds. 

24.  Of  Popish  Objections  to  Sacred  Criticism. 

25.  Difficulty  of  Practical  Criticism. 

26.  Of  Rhetoric. 

27.  Of  Philosophy. 

28.  Oi  Logic. 

29.  Of  the  uses  of  Logic. 

30.  Same  subject  continued. 

3L  Of  the  Abuse  of  liOgical  Sublety. 

32.  Cases    where   accuracy   is   needless,   and    cases 

where  it  ought  to  be  looked  for. 

33.  Of  Logical  Analysis  of  Scrij)ture. 

34.  Of  the  Use  of  Logic   in   reconciling  apparent 

contradictions. 

35.  Of  the  use  of  Logic  in  detecting  the  course  of 
Argument. 

3G.  Oi  History. 

37.  Of  Errors  arising  from  ignorance  of  History. 

38.  Of  Geography. 

39.  Of  the  divisions  of  Palestine. 

40.  Subsequent  alterations  in  the  Division. 

41.  Of  the  Kingdom  of  Herod  the  Great. 

42.  Of  the  Roman  Procurators. 

43.  Of  the  Kingdom  of  Jgrippa. 

44.  Of  the  Physical  Geography  of  Palestine. 

45.  Of  the  Geography  of  Asia. 


XX  CONTENTS. 

§  46.  Of  the  Various  kinds  of  Roman  Provinces. 

47.  Of  Consular    and    Prcetorian    Provinces :    and 

of  the  Procurators. 

48.  Of  Allied  Cities,  and  Roman  Colonies. 

49.  Of  the  different  ranks  of  Cities. 

50.  Of  the    necessity  of  making  Geography  a  se- 

perate  Study. 

51.  Of  Chronology,  especially  that  of  the  Old   Tes- 

tament. 

52.  Of  Chronological  difficulties  in  the  New  Tes- 

tament. 

53.  Of  the  date  of  St.  Paul's  Conversion. 

54.  Of  the  connexion  of  Sacred  and  Profane  Chro- 

nology. 

55.  Of  the  Chronology  of  the  Herod ian  Dynasty. 

56.  Of  the  Succession  of  High  Priests. 

57.  Of   certain    peculiarities   in    the    Jewish   Me- 

thod of  calculating  Periods. 

58.  Caution  to    be  observed    in    the    Assumption 

of  Elementary  Dates. 

59.  Necessity  of  Historical  and  Antiquarian  know- 

ledge. 

60.  Of  useful  Chronological  Works. 

61.  Of  Jewish  Antiquities. 

62.  Of  the  Captivity  of  Israel  and  of  the  Samari- 

tans. 

63.  Of  the  Captivity  of  the  Jews. 

64.  Of  the  mixture  of  Israelites  among  the  Sama- 

ritans. 

65.  Of  Jewish  Emigrations  to  Egypt  and  Cyprus. 

66.  Of  Emigrations   to  Antioch  and  other  Asiatic 

Cities. 

67.  Of  the  patronage  afforded  to  Jewish  Emigrants 

by  the  Caesars. 

68.  Of  the  Herodian  Family. 


CONTENTS.  XXI 

70.  Of  the  Roman  Procurators. 

71.  Of  the  light  thrown  on  this,  and  subjects  connect- 

ed with  it,  by  the  Orations  of  Cicero  in  Ver- 
rem. 

72.  Of  the  power  of  the  High-Priesty  and  Sanhe- 

drim. 

73.  Of  other  Jewish  Magistrates  at  Jernsalem. 

74.  Of  the  Captain  of  the  Temple. 

75.  Of  the  Jewish  Archons  out  of  Judea. 

76.  Of  Jewish  Archons  in  Judea. 

77.  Of  the  Priests  and  Levites. 

78.  Of  the  Temple. 

79-   Of  the  veco;,  hoov,  oiyiov,  and  oL^vrov. 

80.  Of  Synagogues  and  Proseuchse. 

81.  Of  Jewish  Schools  of  Theology. 

82.  Of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees. 

83.  Of  the  divisions  of  Time  among  the  Jews. 

84.  Of  Liquid  and  Solid  Measures  ;  and  of  the  Coins 

mentioned  in  the  New  Testament. 

85.  Of  Provincial  Taxation. 

86.  Of  the  Coins  used  in  the  payment  of  Taxes. 

87.  Of  the  Tax  paid  by  Jews  into  the  Temple  Trea- 

sury. 

88.  Of  the  Dress  of  the  Jews. 

89.  Of  the  3feals  of  the  Jews. 

90.  Of  the  Style  of  Building  among  the  Jews. 

91.  Of  Ceremonies  used  at  Bia^ials. 

92.  Of  Jewish  Punishments. 

93.  The  same  subject  continued. 

94.  Of  the  History  of  the  Ccesars  from  Augustus  to 

Nero. 

95.  Of  the  Government  of  the  Empire  as  arranged 

by  A  ugustus. 
OQ.  Of  the  Judicial  power  of  the  Provincial  Magis- 
trates. 


XXll  CONTENTS. 

§  97.  Of  the  Prcetorian  Cohorts  and  their  Prefect. 

98.  Of  the  Roman  Troops  in  the  Provinces. 

99.  Of  the  Collection  of  Taxes. 

100.  Of  Roman  citizenship. 

101.  Necessity  of  a  knowledge  of  Greek  Antiquities. 

102.  Of  the  Sacrificial  Rites  of  the  Greeks. 

103.  Of  the  Greek  Coins  mentioned  in  the  New  Tes- 

tament. 

104.  Of  the  Armour,  and   Athletic   Games    of  the 

Greeks. 

105.  Of  their  Naval  AflFairs. 

106.  Importance  of  a  knowledge  of  all  these  Subjects 

to  the  Interpreter  of  Scripture. 

107.  Same  subject  continued. 

108.  Of  the  Errors  produced  by  ignorance  of  them. 

109.  Same  subject  continued. 

110.  Caution  to  be  used  in  the  application  of  Anti- 

quarian and  Grammatical  Knowledge  to  the 
Interpretation  of  the  New  Testament. 

111.  Of  Philosophy. 


PBISGE'^0^ 


PAR^^HIRD. 


OF  THE  HEIIMENEUTICAL    APPARATUS, 
AND  ITS  PROPER  USE. 


CHAPTER  I. 


CONCERNING  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
MENT, THEIR  AUTHENTICITY,  GENUINENESS, 
DISTINCTIONS,    &C. 

I.  That  the  greater  portion  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament  were  really  written  by 
those  whose  names  are  attached  to  them,  is 
proved  by  such  unanimous  evidence  of  anti- 
quity, that  their  authenticity  is  as  certain  as 
that  of  any  other  ancient  book  whatever.  And 
of  those  whose  authenticity  is  less  distinctly 
proved,  there  is  no  just  reason  for  suspecting, 
that  any  were  written  at  another  time,  or  by 
other  men   than   is  generally  believed ;  or  at 


2  AUTHENTICITY,  GENUINENESS,  &C. 

least,  that  they  were  written  by  other   than 
irispired  men.^ 

■  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  Ernesti  has  not,  in  this  place, 
briefly  explained  his  sentiments  res^^ecting  inspiration.  For 
a  good  interpreter  cannot  proceed  without  clear  notions  on 
this  subject.  The  opinions  respecting  it,  which  he  has  ad- 
vanced in  his  Nov.  Bibl.  Theol.  T.  iii.  p.  468,  have  been 
supported  by  Hegelmaier  in  his  Comment,  de  ^toTyzva-Tta, 
Tubingen  1784.  But,  at  the  present  day,  it  will  be  proper 
to  consult,  Grieshach's  Comment,  de  Theopneustia  Librorum 
Sacrorum,  Jense  1784 — 1788.  Semler's  Beitrag  zur  Revi- 
sion der  kirklichen  Hermeneutik  und  Dogmatic,  (Helps  to 
the  Revision  of  Ecclesiastical  Hermeneutics  and  Dogmatics,) 
p.  24,  and  Doederlein's  Instit.  Theol.  Christ.  §  30. 

As  to  the  gemdneness  of  the  several  books,  it  is  proved, 
1.  By  the  historical  evidence  of  the  most  ancient  fathers,  as 
Barnabas,  Clement  of  Rome.  Ignatius,  Polycarp.  2.  By  the 
Tise  of  the  church  in  the  earliest  age.  See  Spanheim,  De 
Script.  Hist.  Evan.  Opp.  ii.  p.  266.  3.  By  internal  argu- 
ments drawn  from  the  language  and  tenor  of  the  books 
themselves.  See  Michaelis,  Introd.  in  Nov.  Test.  §  2 — 12. 
Lessius,  Wahrheit  der  Christl.  Rel.  (Truth  of  the  Chris- 
tian Religion,)  p.  1 — 125.  Geschichte  der  Rel.  (History  of 
Religion,)  §  28 — 34.  And  Doederlein's  Instit.  Theol.  Christ. 
P.  ii.  p.  29.  sqq.  [As  far  as  relates  to  the  gentiineness  and 
authenticity  of  the  Canonical  Books  of  the  New  Testament, 
our  own  theological  literature  is  abundantly  sufficient. 
The  British  student  may  be  satisfied  with  Lardncr's  Credi- 
bility, Paleifs  Evidences,  Jones  on  the  Canon,  and  the  1st 
vol.  of  Mr.  TIorne''s  Introduction.  "With  respect  to  the 
nature  and  extent  of  inspiration,  OTir  Theology  is  very  poor, 
and  the  result  is,  that  a  great  diversity  of  opinion  on  this 
head  prevails  even  among  the  orthodox  ;  not  indeed  as  to 


OF  NEW  TESTAMENT.  3 

■whether  the  Scripture  is  inspired,  but  as  to  the  extent  of 
the  inspiration.  Some,  for  example,  hold  a  verbal,  others 
only  a  real  inspiration  :  some  claim  inspiration  for  every 
portion  of  Scripture  equally,  others  only  for  those  points 
which  the  Apostles  could  not  otherwise  have  known.  The 
limits  of  a  note  are  manifestly  insufficient  for  entering  upon 
a  full  examination  of  this  question,  but  if  the  general  truth 
of  Scripture  be  proved,  as  it  is  abundantly,  in  the  works 
above  referred  to,  the  Translator  conceives  that  the  simple 
principle  of  the  necessity  of  the  case  will  go  far  to  establish 
a  mmimum,  below  which  we  cannot  rationally  reduce  the 
degree  of  Scriptural  Inspiration.  Allowing  then  the  truth 
of  Scripture,  it  was  manifestly  the  will  of  God  to  enlighten 
and  evangelize  the  world,  1st,  by  the  preaching,  and  2dly, 
by  the  writings  of  the  Apostles.  Now,  since  the  substance 
of  what  they  were  to  teach  was  comjiosed  of  truths  which 
they  had  not  fully  learned  from  our  Saviour's  personal  mi- 
nistry, it  was  necessary  that  they  should  be  inspired  with 
this  knowledge.  Such  inspiration  was  promised,  and  the 
promise  was  fulfilled  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  But  was  this 
primary  inspiration  sufficient;  and  might  they  have  been 
safely  left  to  communicate  the  knowledge  thus  supernatu- 
ralhj  acquired,  in  a  mere  natural  manner  ?  Certainly  not. 
For  being  in  themselves  fallible,  they  might  have  represent- 
ed the  true  doctrine  in  such  a  light,  or  illustrated  it  by  such 
figures  and  examples,  as  must  necessarily  have  led  their 
hearers  and  readers  into  error:  in  short,  they  might  have 
fallen  into  any  or  into  all  the  absurdities  into  which  be- 
lievers in  the  truth  of  Scripture  have  fallen,  from  their  time 
to  the  present.  To  guard  against  this,  there  must  have  ex- 
isted a  permanent  influence  of  the  Spirit  guarding  them  from 
all  erroneous  colouring,  and  defective  illustration,  as  well  as 
from  absolute  falsehood.  The  necessity  of  the  case  then  leads 
us  to  conchide,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  having  at  first  imparted 
to  the  Apostles  a  clear  knowledge  of  all  requisite  truths,  did 
habitually  exercise  such  an  influence  over  their  minds,  as  to 


4         AUTHENTICITY,  GENUINENESS,  &C. 

preserve  them  from  all  misapprehension  and  misrepreserita- 
tion,  there  heing  no  other  conceivable  way  in  which  thc'r 
knowledge  could  with  certainty  have  been  rendered  avail- 
able for  its  intended  purpose.] 

II.  For  though  doubts  did  exist  at  an  early 
period  respecting  some  books,  those  doubts 
did  not  extend  to  the  fact  of  inspiration,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  ;  or  were 
entertained  by  a  few  only,  who  judged  with- 
out a  sufficient  knowledofe  of  the  facts.'' 

**  It  is  notorious  that  the  case  is  otherwise ;  for  if  the 
Apocalypse  be  taken  from  St.  John,  if  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  be  given  to  some  Alexandrine  Jew,  see  Zeigler^s 
Einleitung,  p.  256,  and  the  Second  and  Third  Kpistles  of 
John  attributed  to  John  the  Presbyter,  then  the  inspiration 
of  these  books  is  invalidated,  whose  authenticity,  together 
with  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude, 
and  of  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  ought  in  the  first  place 
to  be  proved. 

III.  Nor  are  the  arguments  of  ancient  here- 
tics, denying  the  apostolic  origin  of  these 
books,  of  any  force,  since  it  is  clear  that  their 
only  object  was  to  obtain  a  shelter  for  their 
impiety;  nor  those  of  later  deists,  who  bring  for- 
ward the  frequency  of  pious  frauds  in  the  early 
church,  and  similar  topics  ;  in  all  of  which  they 
do  not  attempt  to  establish  by  historical  proofs 
what  really  was  done,  but  rashly  conjecture 
what  may  have  been  done;  a  method  more 


OF  NEW  TESTAMENT.  5 

suited  Tor  those  who  eagei'ly  desire  some  par- 
ticular result,  thau  for  those  who  wish  truly 
and  accurately  to  instruct.*^ 

•^  Respecting  the  controverted  (avr/Xeyo^sva)  books  first 
mentioned,  we  may  further  observe,  Ist,  That  neither 
moral  nor  dogmatic  theology  would  receive  any  injury 
though  they  were  all  to  be  declared  spurious,  since  no  truth 
of  Christianity  rests  upon  their  evidence  alone ;  2d,  That 
doubts  respecting  them  are  not  of  a  very  early  date.  Origen 
admits  them  all  as  authentic :  but  Eusebius  in  his  Hist. 
Ecc.  iii.  25,  expresses  doubts  respecting  some,  whence  arose 
the  distribution  into  ofAaXoyovfji.iyoi,  uvri^iyofisva.  and  vo^a,  that 
is,  into  admitted,  controverted,  and  spurious :  3d,  That  no  ad- 
versary can  shew  that  any  one  of  these  books  is  false  ;  on  the 
contrary,  all  sedulously  distinguish  them  from  the  Apocry- 
phal books ;  maintaining  only  that  their  authenticity  rests 
on  weaker  evidence  than  that  of  the  other  books.  See 
Weber's  Symh.  ad  Can.  Nov.  Test.  Tubingen  1791,  p.  158, 
sq.  Those  who  wish  to  examine  the  subject  more  accurate- 
ly, may  consult  Semler's  Freie  Untersuchung  des  Canons, 
Halae  1771 — 75.  Free  Enquiry  into  the  Canon.  Roesler's 
Bibl.  der  Kirckenv'dter,  Library  of  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church,  t.  iv.p.  394,  sq.,  Haenlein' s Handbuchder Einleitung 
in  die  Schriften  des  N.  T.  Manual  of  Introduction  to  the 
writings  of  the  New  Testament,  Ed.  2,  Erlangen  1801,  P.  i. 
p.  39,  sq.,  and  the  work  of  Hug,  who  has  struck  out  a  new 
lijie  of  enquiry,  Einleitung  in  die  Schriften  des  N.  T.  Tu- 
bingen 1808,  P.  i.  p.  1,  sq.  [It  does  not  give  a  true  repre- 
sentation of  the  case  to  say,  as  Ammon  does,  that  Eusebius 
de  quibusdam  jam  sententiam  fert  ancipitem  ;  for  Eusebius, 
in  the  chapter  quoted,  declares  that  he  is  giving  not  his  own 
pi-ivate  opinion,   but  the  ecclesiastical  tradition,  vrx^alioffn 

IV.  That  the  Greek  text  is  authentic,  is  not 


6  AUTHENTICITY,  GENUINENESS,  &C. 

less  indisputably  true.  For  tliouoh  there  ex- 
ists an  ancient  tradition  that  St.  Matthew 
originally  wrote  his  Gospel  in  Hebrew,  yet 
the  same  tradition  asserts,  that  it  was  translated 
into  Greek,  either  by  Matthew  himself,  or  by 
some  other  inspired  writer ;  but  the  tradition 
altogether  rests  on  no  solid  foundation.**  Re- 
specting a  Latin  original  of  St.  Mark's  Gos- 
pel,® and  a  Syriac  of  that  of  St.  John,  there  ex- 
ists a  more  recent  and  unfounded  tradition  or 
conjecture/  That  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
was  originally  written  in  Hebrew,  was  the 
opinion  of  Clement^  as  we  learn  from  Eusebim^ 
Hist.  Ecc.  vi.  14.,  and  also  of  Eusebius  himself. 
But  neither  does  this  opinion  rest  upon  any 
satisfactory  arguments.^ 

^  See  the  Hebrew  origin  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  asserted 
in  Michaelis'  Ini.  in  N.  T.  Tom  11.  p.  950,  Ed.  4.  Masch 
has  taken  the  opposite  side  in  his  work,  von  der  grundsprache 
des  Evang.  Matt.  On  the  original  language  of  St.  Matthevx-'* 
Gospel.  See  also  IFa/i7'5  Magazine,  T.  II.  p.  57*  There  is 
now  little  doubt  respecting  the  Hebrew  origin  of  this  Gospel; 
nor  do  we  see  how  there  can  be  any,  after  the  express  testi- 
monies of  Origen,  Eusebius,  and  Jerome,  who  was  almost  an 
eye  witness.  [uvTOTryis  is  the  word ;  but  in  what  sense 
Jerome  could  be  almost  avroTT'/js  of  what  language  St.  Mat- 
thew wrote  in,  the  translator  cannot  imagine.] 

*■'  liaronius  in  his  Annal.  Christ.  An.  45,  has  attempted 
to  support  the  Latin  origin  of  St.  Mark's  Gospel.  He  has. 
been  refuted  by  Baumgarten  in  his  Vindiciie  Textus  (Jra-ci 
and   by   Dobrowski  in   his  Fragm.   Prag.    Evang.    Marci. 


OF  NEW  TESTAMENT.  / 

Pragae,  1778.  Equally  unsupported  is  the  conjecture  of 
Wahl  in  his  Magazine  for  ancient  and  especially  for  Biblical 
and  Oriental  Literature,  No.  Ill,  p.  8,  sq.  that  St.  Mark 
wrote  in  Coptic. 

^  See  Sahnasius  de  Hellen.  p.  251,  sq.  equally  weak  is 
the  opinion  of  Harenberg  concerning  the  Syriac  original 
of  the  Apocalypse.  There  is  another  question  respecting 
the  true  Redacteur  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  first  stated  by 
Grotius  and  Wetstein,  pursued  by  Vogel,  Bertholdt  and 
Weyscheiden,  and  not  yet  brought  to  a  satisfactory  conclusion. 

s  See  Semler''s  Diss,  on  the  Greek  origin  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  Hal.  1761.  Zeigler''s  Introduction,  and  Hein- 
ricK's  Pi-olegomena  to  the  Epistle,  [published  as  part  of  the 
Nov.  Test.  Koppianum.] 

V.  Nor  is  it  to  be  admitted  that  the  Greek 
text,  which  we  now  possess,  is  substantially- 
different  from  that  which  the  primitive  church 
received  from  the  Apostles  ;  or  that  it  is  so  cor- 
rupted and  interpolated,  as  not  to  be  a  copy  of 
the  genuine  Greek  text,  and  to  be  inferior 
in  authority  to  the  Latin  version.  For  the 
system  of  J.  Blanchinus^  in  his  Vindicice  Canon. 
Script.,  preferring  the  copies  of  the  earliest 
Latin  version  to  the  Greek  manuscripts,  to- 
gether with  other  arguments,  is  refuted  by  the 
common  consent  of  the  most  ancient  Greek 
fathers,  as  well  as  of  many  Latin  ones,  in 
quoting  and  interpreting  the  Greek  text.  And 
if,  in  some  cases,  they  depart  from  our  Greek 
text  and  agree  with  the  Latin  version ;  this  is 
done  very  rarely,  and  not  by  all.     Interpola- 


8  AUTHENTICITY,  GENUINENESS,  &C. 

tions  also  into  the  Greek  text  from  the  Latin, 
of  which  we  shall  speak  hereafter,  are  to  be 
found  in  some  ancient  copies,  not  in  all;  and  are 
discovered  and  rejected,  both  by  many  manu- 
scripts, and  by  the  authority  of  ancient  writers. 

■  For  example  Acts  iii.  12,  ivA^uec  for  i^ov<rta  and  Philipp, 
ii.  30,  'zra^a,Sokiv<reifJt,ivos  for  'jra.^ce.oovkivtrcifiivos,  in  which 
texts  the  genuine  reading  is  still  doubtful. 

VI.  The  story  also  told  by  Victor  Tumiun- 
ensis  respecting  an  emendation  or  rather  a  cor- 
ruption^ of  the  Gospels  by  the  Emperor  Anas- 
iasius,  wherever  it  had  its  origin,  is  utterly  un- 
founded, as  Wesseling  has  shewn  in  his  Diss,  de 
Evang.  sub  Anastasio  Emend. 

^  The  story  is  told  by  Victor  in  his  Chronicle  edited  by 
Sirmondus,  and-  again  by  Scaliger  in  his  work  De  Emend. 
Temp.  But  it  is  clear  that  this  opinion  is  entirely  ground- 
less. 1.  Because  all  the  enemies  of  Anastasius  are  silent 
respecting  it.  2.  Because  Victor  lived  in  Africa  remote 
from  Anastasius,  and  thus  probably  received  an  erroneous 
version  of  the  story.  See  another  opinion  on  this  subject, 
besides  Wesseling's,  in  Eentley's  book  Friponnerie  LaiquCy 
p.  36.  [The  work  of  Bentley's  here  referred  to  is  the  cele- 
brated Remarks  on  Collin's  Discourse  of  Freethinking  by 
Phileleutherus,  Lipsiensis,  Ijond.  1/13.  It  was  translated 
into  French  and  published  at  Amst.  1738,  by  Armand  de  la 
Chapelle,  under  the  curious  title  above  mentioned.] 

VII.  It  is  incredible  that  Divine  Providence 
would  have   permitted  those  books  which,  by 


OF  NEW  TESTAMENT.  9 

its  own  ordinance,  contained  tlie  sole  rule  of 
faith  and  morals,  to  be  so  corrupted,  as  no 
longer  to  serve  the  purpose  for  which  they 
were  intended.  Nor  was  it  possible  that  books 
which  were  in  the  hands  of  so  many  persons, 
which  were  reckoned  so  sacred,  of  which  there 
existed  so  many  copies,  and  so  many  versions 
in  different  and  distant  countries,  by  a  com- 
parison of  which  errors  might  so  easily  have 
been  detected,  and  whose  integrity  was  watch- 
ed over  by  so  many  doctors  of  the  church, 
could  still  be  so  corrupted  by  heretics,  as  that 
their  corruptions  should  extend  to  all  the 
copies.  The  attempts  of  Marcioji,  Tatiari, 
Theodotus,  and  others  mentioned  by  IrencBUS,  i. 
28,  and  by  Eiisehius,  Hist.  Ecc.  iv.  29,  and  vi. 
28,  have  fallen  to  the  ground  ;™  and  whoever 
has  tried  a  similar  experiment,  has  been  con- 
futed by  the  authority  of  more  ancient  manu- 
scripts, as  is  observed  by  Augustine,  Con.  Faus- 
tum,  xxxii.  6. 

'  liest  their  labours  should  be  estimated  too  highly,  read 
Frick  and  Gricsbach^s  Curae  in  historiam  textus  Graeci  Epist. 
Paul.  Jenoe,  1777- 

™  See  Mill's  Prolegomena,  p.  62.  It  is  scarcely  necessary 
to  remind  the  reader  that  the  whole  of  Ernesti's  argument 
here  is  weak  and  vacillating.  See  Mosheim's  Diss,  de  causis 
suppositorum  (et  interpolatorum)  librortim  inter  Christianos, 
sec.  primi  et  secundi,  in  his  Diss,  relating  to  eccle.siastical 
history,  Ed.  2,  Altoua,  1733,  I.  217,  sq.       [Tbere  seems  to 


10  AUTHENTICITY,   GENUINENESS,  &C. 

be  no  sufficient  reason  for  the  sneer  here  directed  against 
Ernesti's  argument.  For  though  it  be  rasli  to  assert  what 
steps  Divine  Providence  will  take  to  secure  its  own  work  ; 
yet  all  the  circumstances  mentioned  by  Ernesti  had  a  mani- 
fest tendency  to  maintain  the  text  free  from  all  substantial 
error;  and  some  of  them,  as  the  multiplication  of  copies, 
though  it  increased  the  number  of  minor  errors,  or  various 
readings  as  we  now  call  them,  added  at  the  same  time  to  the 
data  for  determining  the  true  reading,  as  will  be  shewn  here- 
after. For  the  causes  of  such  varieties  see  Marsh's  Lectures 
on  the  Criticism  of  the  Bible.     Camb.  1828,  p.  89,  sq.] 

VIII.  Therefore  the  complaints  of  certain 
ancient  Fathers,  as  Origen^  Epiphanius,  Je- 
rorne^Y  concerning  the  corruption  of  the  text, 
either  exaggerate  the  matter,  and  are  not  to 
be  received  literally  ;  or  perhaps  they  ought 
to  be  understood  of  verbal  errors  introduced, 
especially  into  priv^ate  copies,  by  copyists  who 
were  either  ignorant,  or  hurried  their  work  to 
increase  their  profits.  Nor  should  this  variety 
of  readings  in  single  copies  induce  us  to  pro- 
nounce the  sacred  books  generally  corrupted, 
any  more  than  it  does  in  the  profane  authors 
of  Greece  and  Rome,  the  best  manuscripts  of 
which  often  contain  innumerable  clerical  er- 
rors. 

"Add  also  Augustine,  who,  however,  appears  only  to 
have  used  copies  of  the  Latin  version.  If,  however,  we 
listen  to  the  same  strain  of  complaint  from  Chrysostom, 
Bazil,  and  Grer/.  Nazianzen,  it  is  to  be  feared  we  shall 


>   OF  NEW  TESTAMENT.  1 1 

scarcely  coincide  in  the  views  of  our  author.  [It  appears 
to  the  translator  that  Ernesti  takes  a  practical  view  of  the 
matter,  and  means  only  to  say  that  the  copies  in  common 
use  were  never  so  corrupt  as  in  any  degree  to  aiFect  either 
the  facts  or  doctrines  of  the  Gospel.  That  such  complaints 
as  those  mentioned  above,  are  not  to  be  too  literally  inter, 
preted,  appears  from  the  case  of  Griesbach.  He  s^ays  in  his 
Prolegomena,  p.  43.  Textus  viilgo  recejjti  prorsus  nulla  est 
auctoritas.  And  yet  a  reader  of  the  Vulgate  text  would  find 
the  same  facts  and  doctrines  as  a  reader  of  Griesbach's  edition.  ] 

IX.  For  if  such  errors,  and  the  variety  of 
readings  thence  arising,  invalidated  the  in- 
tegrity of  Scripture,  there  woukl  remain  no- 
thing sure  and  incorrupt  in  the  whole  com- 
pass of  antiquity.  Nor  ought  w^e  so  much  to 
wonder  at  the  existence  of  such  errors  in  the 
copies  of  the  New  Testament,  as  we  ought  to 
have  wondered  had  they  not  existed.  For 
absolute  accuracy  could  have  been  effected 
only  by  the  intervention  of  God,  preventing 
the  mistakes  of  the  copyists.  That  such  in- 
tervention w^as  not  used,  appears  from  the 
state  of  the  case ;  that  it  was  unnecessary  to 
the  integrity  of  the  sacred  books,  is  allowed  by 
the  judgment  of  all  intelligent  men.° 

°  In  books  of  human  authority  the  mistakes  of  copyists 
are  of  little  moment.  But  the  matter  is  very  different 
with  respect  to  those  writings,  on  the  most  minute  points 
of  which,  doctrines  inspired,  and  therefore  affecting  salva- 
tion, are  said   to  depend.     Thus,  for  example,  it  makes  a 


V2  AUTHENTICITY,  GENUINENESS,  &C. 

great  difference,  whether  in  Acts  xx.  28,  we  read  B-iov  or 
Kv^lou :  in  Rom.  ix.  5,  whether  we  place  the  comma  after 
ffa^x.a  or  after  •ffu.vruv :  In  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  whether  Ave  sup- 
pose that  OC  or  0C  was  originally  written.  Therefore  the 
Jewish  supei'stition  which  attaches  divinity  either  to  letters 
in  general,  or  to  particular  books,  is  to  be  rejected  as  utter- 
ly foreign  to  the  nature  of  Christianity  :  John  vi.  03=  2 
Cor.  iii-  6,  17.  [Ammon's  Latin  here  is,  "  quae  ro  ^lioM  sive 
litteris  in  universum,  sive  singulis  libris  adligat."  The 
Translator  hopes  he  will  not  appeal*  captious  for  objecting 
to  almost  all  the  sentiments  of  Amnion  in  this  part  of  the 
work ;  indeed  it  is  no  more  than  he  has  done  to  Ernesti. 
In  the  first  place,  then,  though  we  allow  that  variations  in 
the  sacred  books  are  infinitely  more  important  than  in  pro- 
fane authors,  yet  who  ever  asserted  or  granted  that  any 
doctrines  affecting  salvation  (salutaris)  depends  upon  mi- 
nute points  (punctis  et  apicibus)  of  the  text  ?  What  Tri- 
nitarian ever  rested  his  belief  on  the  superior  probability  of 
S-Eow  to  Kv^'tov  in  Acts  XX.  28,  or  upon  the  position  of  the 
comma  in  Rom.  ix.  5,  or  upon  the  preference  of  0C  to  OC, 
in  1  Tim.  iii.  16  ?  On  these  texts  the  reader  will  do  well 
to  consult  Middleton  on  the  Greek  article,  418 — 428.  And 
Magee  on  Atonement,  vol.  ii.  p.  564,  sq.  Varieties  of  read- 
ing are  not  Avanting  in  the  ancient  classical  historians,  and 
yet  no  important  fact  of  Greek  or  Roman  history  remains 
doul)tful  from  this  cause.] 

X.  The  integrity  of  books  is  so  far  from 
being  invalidated  by  such  errors,  and  the  va- 
rious readings  to  which  they  have  given  rise, 
that  in  these  books  especially  it  is  thereby  con- 
firmed ;  as  has  been  abundantly  proved  by 
Era>;mus'^  in  his  answers  to  Stwiica  and  his 
other    opponents,    and  in  the   preface    to  his 


.  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT.  13 

third  edition  of  the  New  Testament ;  and  also 
professedly  by  Bentley  and  others. 

P  In  the  preface  to  \m  New  Testament,  Ed.  2,  1522. 
Consult  also  Glasfie  de  Puritate  N.  T.  Upon  the  whole, 
the  number  of  variations,  while  it  increases  the  labour,  in- 
creases also  the  certainty  with  which  the  text  of  the  New 
Testament  can  be  established. 

XI.  For  this  integrity  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood, as  it  has  been  by  men  ignorant  of  the 
nature  and  laws  of  criticism;  nor  are  we  to 
imagine  that  any  one  copy,  either  manuscript 
or  printed,  is  in  every  point  correct  and  fault- 
less ;  for  no  ancient  book  does  or  can  possess 
such  an  integrity  as  this.  What  we  maintain 
is,  that  from  all  the  copies,  written  and  printed, 
and  from  the  ancient  versions  and  commen- 
taries, a  complete  and  uncorrupt  text  may  be 
formed ;  and  that  in  these  the  genuine  read- 
ings are  preserved,  to  be  elicited  by  the  labour 
of  learned  and  skilful  critics,  as  has  been  well 
shown  by  Glas.se  in  his  Phil.  Sac.  L.  I.  Tr.  ii. 
by  CaloviuH  Crit.  S.  p.  492,  and  by  others.** 

^  [If,  in  the  time  of  Ernesti,  the  genuine  text  was  eru- 
endum,  it  may  be  supposed  that  now,  after  the  able  exer- 
tions of  Griesbach,  Matthai  and  others,  it  has  been  erutum. 
But  we  must  remember  that  corrections  of  the  text  admit 
only  of  prohable  evidence  in  their  favour :  and  though,  in 
any   particular  edition,    the   probability  may  be  highly  ia 


14        AUTHENTICITY,  GENUINENESS,   &C. 

favour  of  each  particular  reading,  still  the  probability  is 
mixch  against  its  peifect  and  universal  correctness.  Be- 
sides, we  are  not  sure  that  the  genuine  reading  of  every 
text  does  exist  among  all  the  manuscripts,  versions,  and 
commentaries.  It  may  have  been  lost  at  a  very  early  pe- 
riod ;  and  hence  arises  the  admissibility,  as  far  as  it  is  ad- 
missible, of  conjectural  emendation.  But  does  this  admis- 
sion of  the  necessary  uncertainty  of  the  text  throw  any 
doubt  upon  the  certainty  of  the  Gospel  narrative,  or  on  the 
scheme  of  doctrine  and  morals  propounded  in  the  Epistles  ? 
In  no  degree  whatever :  for  exactly  the  same  facts  and  doc- 
trines are  taught  by  the  Vulgate  edition  as  by  that  of  Gries- 
bach.  Amidst  all  varieties  there  is  a  substantial  agree- 
ment ;  and  upon  this  we  rest,  as  satisfactory  evidence,  that 
we  possess  the  facts  narrated,  and  the  doctrines  taught  by 
the  Apostles.] 

XII.  Though  we  must  confess,  that,  with 
respect  to  a  few  single  words,  the  true  read- 
ing may  not  exist  in  any  known  copies  ;  which 
confession  has  been  virtually  made  by  the  best 
theologians  and  critics  of  every  age,  in  the 
suggestion  of  conjectural  emendations,  as  will 
be  shown  hereafter  :  Yet  this  does  not  detract 
from  the  integrity  of  the  sacred  books ;  for 
such  cases  are  few,  and  relate  not  to  funda- 
mental doctrines,  but  to  points  of  history;  or  if 
they  relate  to  doctrine  at  all,  it  is  so  slightly, 
tliat  an  error  in  the  text  can  produce  no  error 
in  belief.  ^ 

"■  Consider,  for  example,  1  Cor  iii.  4,  in  which  text  for  the 
ffe/.oy.i>io)o(t]\e  received  text,  tbenianuscri])ts  ACDEFGhave 


OF  NEW  TESTAMENT.  15 

Kvhu^rot,  with  which  the  Vulgate,  Origen,  and  the  jEthiopic. 
version,  also  agree.  Gabler,  in  the  Diar.  lit.  Theol.  Sel.  iii. 
183,  sq.,  justly  complains  that  this  reading  has  been  ne- 
glected by  the  greatest  critics  ;  and  conjectures  that  the 
whole  passage  ought  to  stand,  ou^l  civS^ea-Trot  iiffl,  namely, 
Paul  and  Apollos.  To  the  reception  of  ccy^^wrot  few  will 
object,  since  it  is  supported  by  the  best  ancient  manuscripts, 
is  the  more  difficult  reading,  and  also  because  the  frequent 
repetition  of  the  word  b-u^kixo)  in  the  preceding  verses,  is 
qnite  grating  to  the  ear.  "Av&^utoi  is  to  be  explained  by  the 
preceding  koctu  ccv^^utov  in  the  3d  Averse,  as  meaning,  are  ye 
not  men,  and  betray  your  human  weakness  ?  So  far  I  agree 
with  the  excellent  and  learned  Gabler :  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  I  think  that  lo-rs  ought  to  be  retained,  on  account  of 
the  oZv  which  marks  a  change  of  subject.  It  is  clear,  how- 
ever, that  the  purity  of  the  faith  in  no  degree  depends  upon 
this  discussion ;  for  it  relates  to  an  historical  matter,  which 
Ernesti  denies  to  have  any  connexion  with  faith.  [Ammon 
probably  strains  Ernesti's  meaning,  in  supposing  him  to 
assert  absolutely,  that  historical  facts  can  have  no  bearing 
upon  points  of  doctrine.  This  position  is  so  obviously  false, 
that  the  Translator  is  forced  to  limit  Ernesti's  assertion  to 
those  hist(;rical  facts  which  are  dubious  through  varieties  of 
the  text.  As  to  the  disputed  reading  in  the  note,  it  must 
be  settled  entirely  by  the  authority  of  manuscripts ;  for 
none,  it  is  presumed,  will  admit  the  delicacy  of  Dr.  Am- 
mon's  ear,  as  a  test  of  the  genuine  reading.] 

XIII.  In  defending  the  integrity  of  the  sa- 
cred records,  we  must  be  understood  to  refer  to 
the  integrity  and  certainty  of  the  doctrines 
which  they  contain.  And  in  this  matter,  per- 
haps, we  are  generally  too  timid.  For  even 
the  Apostles,  in  quoting  the  Old  Testament, 


16  AUTHENTICITY,  GENUINENESS,  &C. 

do  not  adhere  to  the  exactness  of  the  Hebrew 
text,  but  sometimes  take  the  Septuagint  ver- 
sion, even  where  it  differs  from  the  Hebrew ; 
nor  do  they  always  use  the  same  words  in  re- 
quoting  the  same  text.  In  short,  they  con- 
sidered it  sufficient  to  have  retained  the  true 
sense  ;  and  yet  they  certainly  quoted  the  pure 
and  uncorrupted  word  of  God.* 

*  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  none  will  raise  a  clamour  against 
the  boldness  with  which  our  immortal  author  here  speaks 
out.  For  the  word  of  God  is  eternal  (Ps.  cxix.  89,)  and 
therefore  cannot  be  confined  within  human  language.  For 
there  is  no  difficulty  in  imagining  a  remote  posterity,  who 
shall  be  as  ignorant  of  Greek  and  Hebrew,  as  we  are  of  the 
language  spoken  by  our  first  parents.  [It  is  natural  to 
suspect,  from  the  triumphant  approbation  of  Ammon,  that 
Ernesti  has  here  said  something  imprudent.  And  yet  his 
bold  language  amounts  only  to  this,  that  though  we  are  not 
sure  of  possessing  every  word  of  the  Apostolic  autographs, 
we  are  sure  of  possessing  all  their  substance.  We  may  ima- 
gine a  future  age  totally  ignorant  of  Greek,  but  we  cannot 
disjoin  such  an  idea  from  that  of  gross  barbarism,  and  a 
woeful  corruption  of  religious  opinions.  What  Ammon 
me^ns  by  saying  that  verbum  dei  humanis  vocibiis  non  in- 
cluf/endum,  is  not  clear.  He  can  scarcely  mean  that  tbe 
doctrines  of  Scripture  are  totally  independent  of  the  words 
in  which  they  were  first  communicated.  Ernesti  seems  to 
err  in  putting  the  varieties  of  our  copies,  on  a  footing  with 
the  varieties  of  the  Apostolic  quotations.  The  oversights 
of  a  copyist,  and  the  verbal  alterations  of  an  inspired  writer 
are  very  different  things.] 

XIV.  Both  the  custom  of  that  age,  and  the 


OF  NEW  TESTAMENT.  17 

frequent  occurrence  of  particles  and  copula- 
tives, and  in  the  Epistles  the  nature  of  the 
composition  itself,  unite  to  prove,  that  the 
sacred  books  were  written  each  in  one  con- 
tinuous strain,  and  not  divided  into  distinct 
portions/ 

*  See  Perizonius  Prsef.  ad  .^lian.  Lugd.  Bat,  l/Ol. 

XV.  It  is  clear,  however,  that  divisions 
were  introduced  at  a  very  early  period,  either 
for  private  use,  or  to  regulate  the  lessons  read 
in  the  public  assemblies,"  and  they  were  intro- 
duced either  for  the  convenience  of  such  divi- 
sions, or  in  imitation  of  the  Jewish  practice,  of 
which  some  traces  are  supposed  to  exist  in  Just. 
Mart,  in  Apol.  II.  §  87.  But  the  silence  of 
the  ancients  intimates,  and  the  discrepancy  of 
manuscripts  in  the  numbering  of  the  chapters 
proves,  that  these  divisions  were  not  origin- 
ally fixed,  nor  universally  received.  For  the 
differences  between  the  Vatican  and  Alexan- 
drine Codices  in  the  numbering  of  the  chap- 
ters, see  Walton's  App.  Bibl.  ix.  34,  and 
Zaccac/ni's  Preface  to  the  Monum.  Vet.  Ecc. 
Grffic?e,  §  46. 

"  This  was  done,  not  in  the  manuscript  copies  of  the  books 

themselves,   but  in  the  Lectionaries  and   Bitviaries See 

Michaelis'    Introduction,    Ed.    4.    p.    303;    and    esjiecially 
C 


18         AUTHENTICITY,  GENUINENESS,  &C. 

Hug's  Introduction,  T.  I.  p.  207,  sq.  [252  of  Wait's  Trans- 
lation. The  ava.yvufffjt.a'ra  or  lessons  of  the  early  church, 
and  the  y.'.(pu.'Ka.ia.  or  chapters  of  Euthalius  and  Ammonius 
must  not  he  confi»unded  with  our  modern  chapters  and  ver- 
ses, as  will  he  seen  in  the  folio tving  sections. — See  also 
Home's  Int.  Ed.  4.  vol  ii.  p.  149.  sq.] 

XVI.  The  most  ancient  and  celebrated  di- 
vision of  the  Gospels,  is  that  which,  for  the 
purpose  of  establishing  their  harmony,  was  first 
thought  of  by  Ammonius,  and  afterwards  by 
Eusebius  :  this  was  gradually  admitted  into 
the  manuscripts,  the  Eusebian  division  being, 
however,  preferred  as  more  exact  and  con- 
venient.* Of  the  manuscripts  now  extant,  the 
Vatican  and  Cambridge  alone,  have  any  other 
than  the  Eusebian  division.  Therefore  it  was 
retained  in  the  earlier  printed  editions,  namely, 
the  first  editions  of  Erasmus,  those  of  Robert 
Stephen,  and  that  of  Mill,  under  the  title  of  the 
juisebian  Canons.  Respecting  these  canons, 
the  reader  may  consult  Simon,  Hist  Crit.  II. 
:32,  III.  9,  not  to  mention  Mill,  Marcianmis, 
Proleg,  Biblioth,  Jerome,  and  others. 

^  See  Fahricius  Biblioth.  Gr.  L.  iv.  c.  b.  sec.  20.  ;  and 
31icliaelis  p.  898.  [and  Hug.  Waite's  Trans,  p.  255.  The 
reference  to  IVlichaelis  is  vol.  ii.  p.  525,  JMarsh's  Tanslatlon.] 

XVII.  Afterwards,  about  A.  D,  496,   the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul  were  divided  into  chap- 


OF  NEW  TESTAMENT.  19 

ters,  with  titles  and  a  table  of  contents,  by 
some  unknown  author,  whom  Mill  suspects  to 
have  been  Theodore  of  Mopsuetia.  This  di- 
vision was  afterwards  introduced  into  his  copies 
by  EuthaliuSi  who  afterwards  became  Bishop 
of  Sulci,  and  at  tlie  suggestion  of  Athanasius, 
Archbishop  of  Alexandria,  collated  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  and  the  other  Epistles,  with 
the  Caisarean  Manuscripts,  and  divided  them 
into  lections^  chapters,  and  crr/jji  or  verses.  This 
division,  together  with  Eusebius'  division  of 
the  Gospels,  was  soon  generally  received,  as 
we  see  in  the  old  manuscripts.  See  Eutha- 
lii,  Epistola  ad  Athanas.  and  his  Prefatio  ad 
Epp.  Paull.,  also  Zaccagni,  1.  c.  §  55.  But 
if  the  division  of  the  Acts,  edited  by  Monf- 
faucon  in  Bibl.  Cois.  p.  76,  under  the  name  of 
Pamphilus  the  Martyr,  from  an  ancient  manu- 
script, though  it  was  published  anonymously 
by  Oecumeiiius  and  others,  had  Pamphilus  for 
its  real  author;  it  is  probable  that  Euthalius 
found  it  while  he  was  inspecting  the  manu- 
scripts of  the  Cfpsarean  library,  and  represent- 
ed it  as  his  own.^ 

y  Consult  RumpcBus,  Diss.  Crit.  ad,  N.  T.  Librns.  Lips. 
1757,  }>.  131.  sq.  We  may  remark  here,  that  there  are 
two  ancient  methods  of  dividing  the  New  Testament.  The 
first  divided  each  book  into  rlrXoi  or  longer  sections,  and 
Ki(pa,>.aia  or  shorter  sections.     The  second  divided  them  into 


*20  AUTHENTICITY,  GENUINENESS,  &C. 

^jj/ttara  periods,  and  ffri^ot  lines  or  verses.  The  latter  is 
similar  to  the  Masoretic  division  of  the  Old  Testament. 
[For  an  explanation  of  ^rtfx.ctra  and  ffri^ot  see  M'^aites  Hug. 
I.  240,  sq.  for  xi(pd.Xaia,  252 ;  and  for  nrXoi,  255.  Hug 
is  of  opinion  that  Euthalius  did  not  claim  the  division 
even  of  the  Acts,  but  only  the  summary  of  the  contents  of  the 
chapters,  as  he  renders  'inSiffi;  x.i(^a.Xa.iuv,  more  correctly  than 
Ernesti,  who  renders  it  divisio. 

XVIII.  After  this  followed  the  modern  di- 
vision into  chapters.  The  originator  of  this 
division  is  uncertain,  as  the  arguments,  which 
claim  it  for  Hu^o  Carensis  are  not  satisfactory.* 
This,  however,  is  certain,  that  it  is  neither  con- 
venient nor  accurate,  and  was  merely  formed 
for  the  purposes  of  verbal  reference. 

^-  The  reason  for  ascribing  it  to  him  [Hugo  Carensis,  or 
de  St.  Cher,  in  the  I2th  century]  is,  that  he  was  the  first 
who  composed  a  concordance,  or  index  of  declinable  words, 
for  the  formation  of  which  such  a  division  was  necessary. 
But  this  proves  nothing,  as  the  division  might  have  been 
made  before See  Marsh's  Michaelis,  Ed.  4.  II.  525,  sq. 

XIX.  The  division  into  verses,  or  lesser 
portions,  was  formed  by  Robert  Stephens,  in  the 
course  of  his  reading,  while  travelling  on  horse- 
back, as  we  are  informed  by  his  son  Henry  in 
the  preface  to  his  Greek  Concordance ;  and  it 
was  first  introduced  into  the  Geneva  edition, 
8vo.  1351  ;  whence,  though  very  carelessly 
performed,  as  might  be  expected  from  the  time 


OF  NEW  TESTAMENT.  21 

and  place,  it  was  gradually  received  into  all 
the  editions.  No  one  then  ought  to  consider 
himself  as  bound  by  it  in  interpreting;  and 
Bengel^  judged  well  in  removing  the  numbers 
of  the  verses  to  the  margin,  so  as  to  leave 
them  for  the  purpose  of  reference,  for  which 
purpose  it  is  probable  they  were  introduced  by 
Stephens,  who  was  then,  perhaps,  meditating 
the  composition  of  a  Greek  concordance  ;  but 
to  show,  at  the  same  time,  that  no  stress  should 
be  laid  upon  them  in  reading  and  interpret- 
ing. 

^  The  same  arrangement  is  made  in  the  editions  of  Gries- 
bach,  Birch,  Alter,  and  Knappe.  [The  divisions  of  the  Text 
in  Knappe's  edition  are  peculiarly  judicious  ;  it  is  accurately 
printed,  in  a  cheap  form,  and  altogether  suitable  for  the  ordi- 
nary use  of  students.   There  is  a  remarkable  instance  of  erro- 
neous division  in  theordinary  arrangement  of  verses,  at  Rom. 
viii.  20,  where  W  |A.^<^;  ought  to  be  closely  connectedwith  the  i  ^  Se^« 
succeeding  otu     The  erroneous  division  and  punctuation  of '^^    V? , 
these  two  verses,  (20,  21.)  has  given  rise  to  very  erroneous   / ^^f,  * 
versions.     See  the  translator's    Paraphrase  and   Notes  on 
Romans,  ad  loc.     As  to  the  inaccuracy  in  the  division  of 
chapters,  we  may  point  out  Acts  v.  1.  where  the  paragraph 
ought  clearly  to  begin  at  iv.  32;  and  1  Cor.  iv.  1,  where  the 
five  first  verses  of  the  chapter  ought  to  be  attached  to  the 
preceding  chapter  ] 

XX.  At  whatever  period  the  marks  oi punc- 
tuation were  invented;  for  on  that  head  we 
profess  no  certain  knowledge ;  it  was  late  be- 


2'2         AUTHENTICITY,   GENUINENESS,   &C. 

fore  they  were  admitted  into  books,  and  tliey 
were  never  used  by  original  writers.  We  are 
also  ignorant  by  whom,  and  at  what  period, 
the  punctuation  of  the  New  Testament  was 
first  arranged.  That  the  copies  of  the  Septua- 
gint,  in  the  time  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  were 
without  points,  appears  clearly  from  his  Catech. 
xiii.  p.  m.  301,  from  whence  we  may  conclude 
that  they  did  not  exist  either  in  the  Greek 
copies  of  the  New  Testament.  That  in  the 
time  of  Augustine,  there  were  no  points  in  the 
Latin  copies,  appears  clearly  from  his  own 
testimony.  Civ.  Dei.  iii.  3.  The  mention  of 
these  circumstances  may  be  useful  not  only  to 
the  younger  students,  but  even  to  the  learned, 
for  they  refute  the  opinion  of  Lipsius,  Le  Cleic, 
and  others.  When,  therefore,  we  meet  in  an- 
cient books  with  any  thing  respecting  rh  diac- 
TiZ^iiv  or  punctuation,  as  in  Aristotle's  Rhetoric, 
or  in  the  Commentaries  of  the  Fathers,  espe- 
cially Theodoret,  who  often  directs  how  a 
passage  ought  to  be  hacriKTkv,  we  are  not  to 
suppose  they  mean  what  we  call  punctuation^ 
but  only  those  pauses  in  reading  which  boys 
were  taught  at  school  by  masters  of  gram- 


''  Consult,  on  this  point,  the  celebrated  Villoisoii,  in  the 
prolegomena  to  his  edition  of  Homer,  Venice,   i78f>-      I" 


OF  NEW  TESTAMENT.  23 

the  most  ancient  manuscripts,  there  are  found  either  no 
points,  or  merely  full  stops  and  spaces.  The  comma  was  in- 
vented in  the  eighth  century,  and  the  semicolon  in  the  ninth ; 
and  the  other  points,  or  rather  the  marks  for  them,  in  the 
following  centuries.  Quintilian  shews  that  the  stops 
themselves  were  used  by  the  ancients.  After  the  invention 
of  printing,  Stephens  placed  the  marks  of  punctuation  at  his 
own  discretion.  See  Rogalfs  Diss,  de  Antiquitate  inter- 
punctionis  Nov.  Test.  Regiom.  1734. 


XXI.  Very  similar  to  this  is  the  history  of 
the  breathings  and  accents ;  which  though  al- 
ways used  in  the  pronunciation  of  the  Greek 
language,  {and  indeed  no  language  can  exist 
without  them),  began  to  be  written,  as  I  find 
to  be  the  current  opinion,  in  the  seventh  cen- 
tury, when  the  proper  ancient  pronunciation 
had  been  lost,  and  could  not  be  learned  by 
practice.  The  more  ancient  copies  of  the  Nevv^ 
Testament,  like  other  manuscripts,  are  with- 
out either :  nor  are  those  well  meanino:  but 
inaccurate  men,  such  as  Leusden  and  J.  H. 
Mains,  to  be  attended  to,  who  endeavour  to 
fix  the  authorship  of  these  marks  upon  the 
Apostles,  as  being  necessary  to  the  integrity 
of  the  text  and  the  determination  of  the  sense. 
In  tliis  point  they  certainly  judaized,  and  en- 
deavoured by  such  arguments  to  strengthen 
the  authority  of  the  Hebrew  accents  and  marks 
of  punctuation.     But  to  philosophize  in  oppo- 


24        AUTHENTICITY,  GENUINENESS,  &C. 

sitioii  to  clear  facts,  is  unworthy  of  a  wise  and 
learned  man.*' 

•^  See  Montfaucon's  Palseographia  Gr.  iii.  5.  While  a 
language  is  in  full  and  perfect  use,  written  accents  are  not 
needed. — See  Henninii  Hellenismus,  Traj.  1684.  Gesner 
de  Genuina  Accentuum  Pronuntiatione  :  and  Reiiz  de  Pro- 
sod.  Gr.  Accentus  Inclinatione,  Lip.  1791.  [See  also 
MicliaeUs,  vol.  ii.  521.  and  Marsh's  Note,  899.] 

XXII.  From  the  foregoing  chapters  we  may 
conclude,  that  when  copies,  whether  manu- 
script or  printed,  vary  in  the  divisions,  punc- 
tuations, accents,  or  breathings,  these  ought 
to  be  considered  as  varieties,  not  of  reading 
but  of  interpretation  ;  nor  ought  we  to  make 
any  scruple  of  interpreting  in  opposition  to 
them. 


OF  MANUSCRIPTS.  25 


CHAPTER  II. 

OF  MANUSCRIPTS,   AND  THEIR  USE. 

I.  It  is  universally  allowed  that  the  original 
copies  of  the  sacred  books  have  perished.^  Far 
as  to  the  boast  of  the  Venetians,  that  they 
possessed  the  autograph  of  St.  Mark,  this 
upon  examination  was  found  to  be  totally  false  ; 
and  it  appeared  that  in  the  same  book  were 
portions  of  another  Latin  manuscript,  as  is 
clearly  shewn  by  a  Turre^  in  a  letter  to  Jos. 
Blanchinus,  (Evang.  Blanchin.  T.  ii.)  This 
is  to  be  especially  consulted  by  all,  who  wish 
for  full  information  on  this  head.* 

^  For  the  Apostles  themselves  did  not  write,  but  only 
subscribed.  2  Thess.  iii.  17'  It  is  clear  that  even  Paw/,  ^ 
who  was  more  highly  educated  than  the  other  Apostles,  ) 
could  not  with  facility  write  Greek.  See  Semler^s  App.  p. 
32.  i7aen/em5  Einleitung,  ii.  p.  8,  seq.  ed.  2.  [The  ques- 
tion here  introduced  by  Ammon  has  little  or  nothing  to  do 
with  that  discussed  by  Ernesti  in  the  text.  That  St.  Paul 
frequently  used  the  aid  of  an  Amanuensis  is  clear ;  and  the 
same  is  done  by  almost  every  man  of  weighty  occupations 
and  extensive  correspondence,  without  bringing  upon  him 
the  suspicion  of  inability  to  write.     The  internal  evidence, 


26  OF  MANUSCRIPTS, 

and  there  is  no  other,  would  lead  us  to  conclude,  that  «s 
St.  Paul  declares,  the  salutation  and  signature,  with  his 
own  hand  to  be  the  mark  of  auchenticity  in  all  the  EpisLies 
which  were  not  autograph,  therefore,  when  no  such  signa- 
ture occurs,  we  ought  to  conclude  the  whole  Epistle  to  have 
been  autograph.  Thus  the  Ep.  to  the  Colossians,  and  the 
2d  to  the  Thessalonians,  would  appear  to  have  been  the 
only  ones  written  by  an  amanuensis.] 

^  See  also  Dubrowski  on  the  Pragensian  fragment,  Prague 
1778,  p.  7,  seq.  The  same  may  be  observed  of  the  copy  of 
the  Old  Testament,  in  the  writing  of  Esdras,  which  the 
Bolognese  boast  of  possessing. 

II.  The  autograph  of  the  Gospel  of  St. 
John,  appears  to  have  been  preserved  for  a 
long  time  in  the  church  at  Ephesus;  since  an  an- 
cient writer  of  the  fourth  century,  supposed  by 
some  to  have  been  Peter  Bishop  of  Alexandria, 
asserts  that  he  had  seen  it.  See  the  Chroni- 
con  Pascliale  Cangianum^  p.  5,  and  also  the 
Uranologia  Fetavii,  p.  213.*^  But  the  authen- 
ticity of  this  passage  and  of  the  testimony  it 
contains,  has  been  questioned  on  gopd  grounds 
by  Scaliger,  Petavius,  Tillemont,  and  lately  by 
Garhellus  in  the  Prolegomena  to  the  Evangel. 
Blanch,  p.  42,  who  attribute  both  the  treatise 
and  the  evidence  to  a  later  Peter  in  the  sixth 
century.  Fricke  in  his  Cura  Vet.  Eccles.  circa 
Canonem.  p.  130,  attempts  to  support  it,  and 
in  my  opinion  argues  successfully  against  tlie 
system  oi'  Sinion.     But  even  he  does  not  prove 


AND  THEIR  USE.  27 

the  authenticity  of  the  passage   by  sufficient 


*'  We  may  be  allowed  to  doubt  of  this,  because  the  auto- 
graph of  the  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Romans  had  ceased 
to  exist  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  That  the 
autographs  of  the  Apostolic  writings  had  perished  through 
constant  wear  in  the  first  or  second  centuries,  appears  from 
the  silence  of  Origen  ;  who,  in  his  travels  throughout  the 
East  in  search  of  manuscripts,  must  have  met  with  some 
autograph  had  any  such  existed.  But  the  autographs,  like 
the  relics  of  the  saints,  are  celebrated  by  posterity,  after 
having  been  neglected  by  their  cotemporaries.  Concerning 
the  autograph  of  St.  Matthew,  see  Euseb.  H.  E.  V.  10. 

III.  Garbellus  in  the  treatise  above  quoted, 
is  of  opinion  that  Tertullian.  in  a  celebrated 
passage  of  his  book  de  Praescrip.  Heretic,  c. 
36,  where  he  says,  ipsas  authenticas  apostolorum 
literas  recitari,  means  that  the  archetypes  of 
the  Apostolic  books  or  Epistles  were,  in  his 
own  time,  read  in  the  churches  which  they 
had  founded.  He  doubts,  however,  whether 
Tertullian  delivers  this  as  an  ascertained  fact, 
or  only  follows  the  current  report.  This  is  cer- 
tainly more  rational  than  the  interpretation  of 
Pamelius  and  Simon,  who  imagine  that  by 
authenticas,  Tertullian  only  means  Greek  copies, 
which  certainly  were  read  in  other  Greek 
churches  as  well  as  in  these.  And  this  reason 
also  forbids  us  to  interpret  him  as   meaning 


28  OF  MANUSCRIPTS, 

genuine  uncorrupted  copies^  which  may  also 
be  called  authentic;  especially  when  he  says, 
"  ipsas  authenticas,"  which  would  have  been 
absurd,  had  he  meant  only  genuine ;  and  he 
names  the  churches  to  which  Paul  wrote,  which 
would  have  been  unnecessary  had  he  not  been 
speaking  of  autographs  ;  and  had  before  said, 
that  the  very  seats  of  the  Apostles,  that  is,  the 
churches  founded  by  them,  still  remained. 

'^  Rossler  however  supports  this  interpretation  in  his  Bi- 
hliothek  der  Kirchenv'dter,  Library  of  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church,  t.  iii.  p.  118,  seq.  But  it  matters  little  whether  we 
understand  by  authenticas,  genuine  or  autograph.  For 
Tertullian  resided  in  Africa,  and  therefore  could  not  have 
any  personal  knowledge  of  the  fact.  Besides  his  narratives 
are  not  always  deserving  of  much  credit. 

IV.  It  is  of  no  greater  importance  to  in- 
quire into  the  cause  of  this  loss  of  the  auto- 
graphs, than  it  is  in  the  case  of  any  other  an- 
cient books.  We  may  reasonably  attribute 
something  to  the  cruelty  of  the  early  persecu- 
tors ;^  for  we  know  that  they  did  extort  copies 
of  the  sacred  books  from  the  churches,  and 
from  individual  Christians.  It  seems  unjust, 
as  Fricke  has  well  shewn,  to  accuse,  as  some 
have  done,  the  indolence  of  the  churches. 

**  Much  more,  however,  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  injuries 
produced  by  time,  and  by  the  fates  of  the  early  churches. 
The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  for  example,  had  few  oi)ponents 


AND  THEIR  USE.  29 

during  the  three  first  centviries  ;  yet  this  most  useful  book 
had  lain  almost  unknown,  and  needed  to  be  brought  to  light 
bv  Chrysostom.  See  his  First  Homily  on  the  Acts,  Ed. 
Ducaei,  t.  iii. 

V.  It  is  fortunate,  however,  that  many  ancient 
manuscripts  have  been  preserved,  and  have 
successively  been  discovered  in  libraries ;  by 
which  means  a  complete  and  authentic  text 
has  been  transmitted  to  us  '}  concerning  which, 
whoever  wishes  for  further  information,  may 
consult  Mill,  or  rather  Simon  Hist.  Crit.  T.  ii. 
c.  29.  30,  and  T.  iii.  at  the  end ;  of  the  Ger- 
mans, Pfaff  de  Var.  Lect.  New  Testament, 
Bengel,  Michaelis  de  Var.  Lect.  Nov.  Test. 
Wetstein,  the  most  diligent  of  critics,  and 
the  illustrious  Semler  in  his  Prseparatio  Her- 
meneutica,  ought  to  be  consulted.^  Many 
manuscripts  still  lie  in  libraries,  which  have 
not  yet  been  sufficiently  inspected  and  collated, 
as  in  those  of  St.  Gall,  the  Escurial,  &c.*  Lami 
counts  eighty-three  Florentine  Manuscripts  in 
his  de  Erucl.  Apost.  p.  218.  It  appears,  however, 
from  Bandini's  Catalogue  of  the  Florence  ma- 
nuscripts, that  most  of  these  are  of  little  value  : 
and  there  are  others  which  it  is  unnecessary  to 
mention. 

'  In  our  age  the  Manuscripts  of  Spain,  Italy,  France, 

England,  Vienna,  Moscow,  and  Manheim,  have  been  collated. 

''  Add  to  these  Griesbach's  Symbola  Critica,  Halle   l78o. 


30  OF  MANUSCRIPTS, 

Michaelis^  Introd.  in  N.  T.  Ed.  4,  p.  545,  seq.  Birch  and 
AfoA/^?i/iawer,  Preface  to  the  N.  T.,  Copenhagen  1788,  and 
Matfhai  in  his  edition  of  the  N.  T.  passim. 

'  Perhaps  also  in  the  eastern  convents,  esjtecially  those 
of  the  Maronites.  Villoison  informs  us  that  little  is  to  be 
expected  from  the  manuscripts  of  the  Greek  convents  on 
jVIount  Athos. 

VI.  The  Vatican  and ^/d'A-^/ic/rme Manuscripts 
are  reckoned  the  most  ancient  now  existing-, 
both  written  in  continuous  uncial  letters ;  but 
the  learned  are  not  agreed  upon  their  relative 
priority,  some  maintaining  the  superior  an- 
tiquity of  the  Alexandrine,  others  that  of  the 
Vatican.  Respecting  the  former,  the  student 
may  consult  the  English  editors  [_Grahe~\  of  the 
Septuagint  version.  Proleg.  T.  ii.  c.  i.  prop. 
XV.,  concerning  the  latter,  Zaccar/ni,  p.  56,  and 
concerning  both,  Wetstein  in  his  Prolegomena 
to  the  New  Testament.™  After  the  proofs  of 
Wetstein,  it  cannot  be  doubted  but  that  both 
have  been  interpolated  from  the  Latin  ver- 
sion ;  and  in  the  Alexandrine  this  appears  from 
the  comparison  of  readings.  Lucas  Brugensis, 
who  possessed  a  colhition  of  it,  sometimes  men- 
tions the  readings  of  the  Vatican  manuscript 
in  \\\^  Notat.  Far.  Led;  and  there  are  also 
some  among  those  published  by  Carj/opliilus  at 
the  onrl  of  the  Catena  of  Posslnus. 

"'  See  Scmler  de  Aetate  Cod.    Alexandriiii,   Ilalle  I7''>9j 


AND  THEIR   USE.  31 

and  Notitia  Cod.  Alexandiini,  by  TVoicIe,  republished  by 
Spolm,  Leipzig  1788.  To  Woide  we  also  owe  an  edition  of 
this  manuscript.  Besides  the  examples  produced  by  Mi- 
chaelis,  the  interpolation  of  this  manuscript  from  the  Latin 
version,  is  proved  from  the  reading  of  John  vii.  39,  where 
it  has  }ilof/.'cvov  which  is  said  to  have  been  introduced  by 
the  Macedonians  against  the  Pneumatomachi.  Griesbach 
supplies  better  arguments,  and  holds  that  the  manuscript 
was  firmed  upon  three  different  recensions.  Concerning  the 
Vatican  manuscript,  Bentley's  Proleg.  and  Wetstein  may  be 
consulted.  Hitherto  only  excerpts  of  this  manuscript,  and 
a  small  number  of  its  readings  have  been  published  ;  we  are 
therefore  unable  to  decide  with  certainty  as  to  what  edition 
it  follows.  See  £ic//^o?-nV  Algem.  Biblioth.  ii.  p.  473.  Birch 
has  lately  published  a  larger  collection  in  his  edition  of  the 
New  Testament,  printed  at  Copenhagen,  of  which  the  reader 
may  consult  the  Prolegomena,  p,  xiii.  sq.  [In  Griesbach's 
notation,  the  Alexandrine  is  marked  A,  the  Vatican  B. 
Tiie  interpolation  of  this  manuscript  from  the  Latin  version 
is  now  generally  discredited.  See  Home's  Introd.  ii.  71» 
and  Semler's  App.  p.  45.  Atnmon's  proof  from  John  vii. 
39,  is  somewhat  unaccountable.  Certainly  nothing  could 
be  introduced  by  tiie  JVIacedonians  against  the  Pneumato- 
machi, as  these  are  but  two  names  for  the  same  sect,  the 
former  derived  from  their  founder,  the  latter  from  their 
distinguishing  tenet.  See  Mosheim  Hist.  Ecc-  Ed.  Helm- 
stadt,  1764,  p.  170.] 

VII.  Next  to  these  may  be  ranked  the 
Coclex  Parisicnsis^^  which  agrees  remarkably 
with  the  Alexandrine,  but  is  very  incomplete : 
the  orginal  writing  has  been  eiFaced,  and  the 
works  of  Ephrem  Syriis  written  over  it,  but 
so   that   the   original   letters   still  appear  and 


32  OF  MANUSCRIPTS, 

may  be  read;  the  Cantahriyieiisu°  and  Clo.- 
romontanus^  now  called  the  Regius  in  the  Paris 
library,P  both  having  the  Greek  and  a  Latin 
version,  and  containing,  the  former  the  Gospel 
and  Acts,  the  latter  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul, 
employed  by  Stephen,  and  still  more  by  Beza ; 
the  Boernerianus,^  Auyiensls,'^  and  Sangerma- 
nensis*  containing  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  in 
Greek  and  Latin  ;  but  all  these  have  the  com- 
mon fault  of  interpolations  from  the  Latin 
version. 

"  A  codex  rescriptus,  probably  of  the  sixth  century,  and 
consequently  one  of  the  oldest  extant.  See  Griesbach's  Symb. 
C'rit.  p.  1 — 54,  and  Prolegomena  to  New  Testament,  ed. 
2,  1796,  i.  101.     [C  of  Griesbach.] 

°  Of  the  seventh  century,  and  now  accurately  collated. 
It  follows  the  western  recension.  See  Griesbach,  1.  c.  p.  55, 
sq.  A  facsimile  of  this  manuscript  was  published  by  Dr. 
Kipling,  at  Cambridge  1793,  who  thinks  that  it  rivals  the 
Alexandrine  in  antiquity.  See  Valckenaer''s  Observations. 
[D  of  Griesbach.] 

»'  Numbered  107,  of  the  seventh  or  eighth  century,  of  which 
W'etstein  judges  unfavourably,  whom  consult.  See  also 
(iriesbach's  proleg.  ed.  2,  ii.  p.  22.      [D  of  Griesbach.] 

1  Graeco-Latin  interlinear.  See  MatlhaVs  preface  to  his 
edition  of  this  manuscript,  Misnia  1791*     [^'  of  Griesbach.] 

'  Of  the  ninth  or  tenth  century,  purchased  by  Bentley, 
and  collated  by  Wetstein.  It  belongs  to  the  western  re- 
cension.    [F  of  Griesbach] 

*  Of  the  tenth  or  eleventh  century.  It  is  considered  by 
W^etstein  and  Griesbach  as  a  transcript  of  the  Parisiensis 
and  Glaromontanus.  [By  Griesbach,  of  the  C'laromontanus 
alone.     See  his  Proleg.  ii.  p.  22,  and  marked  E.] 


AND  THEIR   USE.  33 

VIII.  Of  later  date,  but  yet  of  considerable 
value,  are  the  Vienna*  and  Basle"  Manuscripts, 
especially  the  copy  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  which 
Erasmus  used,  the  Parisian,  the  Cottonian 
fragments  of  the  Gospels  collated  by  Wetstein 
and  others,  which  it  is  unnecessary  here  to 
enumerate.*  It  will  be  more  profitable  briefly 
to  teach  the  proper  use  of  manuscript  copies, 
and  of  the  reading  contained  in  them. 

'  See  Treschow  Tentamen  descript.  Codd.  Vindob.  Haf- 
niee  1773,  and  Alter's  ed.  N.  T.  [The  codex  Vindoboneuis 
t'aesareus,  in  uncial  letters,  attriuuted  by  Treschow  to  the 
seventh  century,  marked  bv  Griesl)ach  N.  also,  in  small 
letters  123,  124  and  125  of  Grieshach,  of  the  Gospels ;  ami 
3,  63  to  07  of  the  Acts  and  Epistles.] 

"  See  Bengel's  App.  Crit.  who  gives  a  full  account  of  these 
manuscripts.  [In  uncial  letters  of  the  Gospels.  E  of  Gries- 
bach  attributed  by  Wetstein  to  the  ninth  century,  and  in 
small  letters  1,  2.     Of  the  Epistles  1,  2.] 

'^  See  Birch  var.  lect.  ad  text.  Act.  Apost.  Epistolas 
Cathol.  and  Paulin.  Hafniae  1798.  Var  lect.  ad  text. 
Evangeliorum.     lb.  1801. 

IX.  It  is  necessary  to  observe,  that  few  of 
the  manuscripts  above  referred  to,  do,  like  the 
Vatican  and  Alexandrine,  contain  the  whole 
of  Scripture,^  a  completeness  which  appears  to 
me  to  lessen  the  probability  of  their  antiquity: 
others  contain  the  Gospels  alone,  or  the  Epis- 
tles of  St.  Paul,  or  the  Catholic  Epistles  with 
the  Acts,  or  the  Acts  alone ;  few  have  the  Apo- 

D 


34  OF  MANUSCRIPTS, 

calypsejaiui  besides,  many  are  mutilated  of  some 
leaves,  as  the  Alexandrine,  the  Parisian  C, 
the  Cantabrigiensis  D.,  &c.  From  whence  it 
appears,  that  when  no  dissent  between  two 
manuscripts  is  noted,  we  cannnot  thence  infer 
their  consent ;  in  which  matter  many  have 
erred,  by  taking-  such  silence  for  consent/ 

^  Both,  however,  omit  the  Apocalypse.  See  Birch's 
Var.  liect.  on  the  text  of  the  Apocalypse.     Havniae,  1800. 

''■  We  must  here  speak  of  the  ancient  recensions  of  the 
Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament,  that  Ave  may  not  be  in- 
terrupted, when  speaking  of  the  interpolations  from  the 
Ivatin  version.  Semler,  App.  Crit.  p.  45,  admits  of  the  fol- 
lowing, the  Alexandrine,  common  to  the  Egyptian  writers, 
the  disciples  of  Origen,  the  Syi-ians,  Copts,  and  Ethiopians  ; 
the  Oriental,  used  at  Antioch  and  Constantinople,  the 
Western,  and  mixed.  See  his  Hermeneutische  Vorbereitung, 
s.  iii.  p.  2,  sq.  Michaelis  in  his  Introduction,  p.  535,  de- 
scribes the  four  principal  recensions,  as  the  Oriental,  the 
Alexandrine,  the  Edessene,  and  the  Western.  Griesbach  ad- 
mits of  only  two,  see  his  Symb,  Crit.  p.  113,  and  his  Hist. 
Text.  Ep.  Paul,  which  he  denominates  the  Alexandrine  a.nA 
the  Western.  Under  the  former  he  classes,  for  the  Gospels, 
the  manuscripts  C.  L.  K.  1,  13,  33,  GO,  106,  118,  and  the 
Kvangelistaria  18,  19,  for  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  A.  C. 
17?  46,  47,  the  quotations  by  the  Alexandrine  Fathers, 
Clemens,  Origen,  Damascenus,  Eusebius,  Cyril ;  with  the 
Syriac,  Coptic,  Armenian,  and  Ethiopic  rersions.  To  the 
second  he  refers,  for  the  Gospels,  D.  1,  13,  69,  for  the  Epis- 
tles, 1).  E.  F.  G.,  together  with  the  Latin  versions,  and  the 
(flotations  of  the  more  ancient  Latin  Fathers.  A  mixed 
recension  prevails  in  the  quotations  of  Chrysostoni  and 
Theodoret.     See  Griesbach's  pref.  N.  T.  p.  25,  and  Proleg. 


AND  THEIR  USE.  35 

lo  the  2d  ed.  Halle,  1796,  i.  p.  73,  sq.  This  division, 
however,  has  not  been  received  without  opposition.  See 
]Matthai,  in  the  preface  and  excursus  to  his  larger  edition 
of  the  N.  T,  in  the  prologue  to  his  compendious  edition ; 
and  in  the  proleg.  and  notes  to  Euthymius  Zigabenus,  Lips. 
1792.  The  learned  Hug  has  taken  a  middle  course,  Ein- 
leitung,  i.  p,  437,  sq.  [For  another  classification  of  m.anu- 
scripts,  see  Nolaii's  Enquiry  into  the  Integrity  of  the  Greek 
Vulgate,  &c.  of  which  a  synopsis  is  given  by  Home,  vol.  ii. 
p.  59.] 

Xx  We  must  guard  against  being  deceived 
by  a  diversity  of  names.  For  manuscripts  have 
often  changed  their  appellation  on  changing 
their  owners ;  and  thus  we  may  be  led  to  mul- 
tiply a  single  copy,  as  has  been  done  even  by 
learned  critics.  We  ought  therefore  to  know 
the  history  of  manuscripts  and  the  causes  of 
the  names  they  bear ;  and  also  to  compare  their 
readings,  so  as  to  be  put  upon  our  guard  by  a 
perpetual  agreement,  especially  in  the  more 
remarkable  readings.® 

^  Thus,  for  example,  the  Codex  Stephanianus  is  the  same 
as  the  Cantabrigiensis,  though  its  identity  has  escaped  the 
notice  both  of  Beza  and  Simon.  See  Wetstein's  Proleg.  ad 
N.  T.  i.  p.  28.  [The  Codex  Cantab,  is  the  B.  of  Stephen. 
The  same  MS.  is  also  indifferently  called  BezcB  or  Canta- 
hrigiensis.  In  the  same  way,  the  Claromon fames  is  also 
called  Regitis,  and  the  Ci/prins  Colhertinus.l 

XL     Nor    is    it    immaterial    to    determine, 
whether  manuscripts   have  been  copied  from 


36  OF  MANUSCRIPTS, 

the  same  original,  or  whether  the  one  be  a 
transcript  of  the  other  :  as,  for  example,  the 
codices  Boernerianus  and  Avgiensis,  the  Sori- 
germanensis  and  Regius^  which  agree  through- 
out, even  in  the  minutest  errors  -^  for  such 
copies  can  only  count  for  one,  in  the  number- 
ing and  weighing  of  authorities. 

**  A  third  point  for  examination,  is  whether  a  niamiscript 
has  been  copied  from  a  printed  edition,  as  the  Cod.  Ravia- 
nus  from  the  Complutensian.  See  Pappelbaum  Untersuchung 
der  Ravischen  Handschrift  des  N.  T.  Berlin  1785. 

XII.  There  is  a  further  division  of  manu- 
scripts. For  some  contain  merely  the  Greek, 
others  the  Greek  with  the  Latin  version,  others 
are  only  lectionaries,  containing  such  portions 
of  the  sacred  books  as  were  read  in  tlie  public 
services  of  the  church.  It  is  to  be  observed, 
that  all  the  Grseco-Latin  copies  are  interpo- 
lated from  the  Latin  version  f  and  with  re- 
spect to  the  lectionaries,  we  must  beware  of 
using  their  authority,  except  in  passages  of 
which  they  contain  portions.^ 

"  Oil  this  point  there  can  l)e  no  doubt ;  for  such  copies 
originated  with  Greeks  who  had  conformed  to  the  Latin 
church ;  and  who,  both  on  account  of  their  poverty,  and  in 
order  to  gratify  the  Latins,  remodelled  the  Greek  text  in 
conformity  with  the  Latin  version.  These  copies,  however, 
are  not  to  be  entirely  despised,  since  it  is  clear  there  were 


AND  THEIR  USE.  37 

many  excellent  readings  in  the  Vetus  Itala  version.  See 
Semler's  Aipp.  p.  44,  and  Vers.  vet.  Ital.  Cod.  D.  ad  Acts 
iii.  12. 

^  The  proper  use  of  lectionaries  is  admirably  treated  by 
Matthai  in  his  ed.  N.  T.  passim.  See  also,  Vetustum  eccl. 
Graecse  Constantinopolitanae  Evangeliarum,  ed.  C.  F.  Matthai, 
Lips.  1701.  [It  is  not  easy  to  see  how  any  one  could  use 
the  authority  of  lectionaries  "  in  aliis  locis,  quam  quorum 
pericopas  habent."  Perhaps  Ernesti  means  that  we  are  not 
to  conclude  from  their  omission,  that  a  passage  is  spuriouf. 
Lectionaries  containing  only  portions  of  the  Gospels,  are 
called  Evangeliaria.] 

XIII.  In  copies  containing  the  Greek  text 
alone,  it  is  necessary  to  examine  whether  they 
be  pure,  or  corrected,  that  is  in  fact  vitiated, 
from  the  Latin  version.®  Purity  may  be  in- 
ferred from  their  differing  from  the  old  Latin 
version  in  the  more  remarkable  passages ;  and 
from  their  agreement  with  versions  formed 
from  a  pure  Greek  text ;  and  still  more  with 
the  more  ancient  Greek  fathers,  as  Origen, 
Chrysostom,  Tlieodoret  and  the  like,  especially 
in  their  commentaries ;  for  the  texts  of  Scrip- 
ture, inserted  in  their  commentaries,  have  often 
been  tampered  with  by  editors. 

*  This  subject  has  taken  a  very  different  appearance  since 
the  inquiries  of  Semler  and  Griesbach  into  the  variety  of  re- 
censions. The  latter  in  his  Symb.  Crit.  p.  Ill,  observes, 
"  They  err  greatly,  who  imagine,  because  a  manuscript 
agrees  with  the  Latin  version,  that  therefore  it  has  been 


38  OF  MANUSCRIPTS, 

interpolated  from  it.  Readings  of  this  class  are  to  he  de- 
rived, not  from  the  Latin  version,  but  from  the  Greek 
copies  of  the  Western  recension."  But  consult  the  whole 
passage.  [See  also  Semler's  App.  Crit.  p.  45  ;  and  Her- 
meneutische  Vorbereitung,  3d  part,  p.  45.  With  respect  to 
the  corruption  of  the  texts  quoted  by  the  Fathers,  the  reader 
may  find  a  probable  example  in  Ernesti,  Instit.  Bib.  Cab. 
vol.  i.  p.  1C2,  N.  c,  where  it  appears  that  vt}(TTua,  has  been 
intei-polatod  into  the  text,  1  Cor.  vii.  5,  as  quoted  by  Chry- 
sostom.] 

XIV.  And  here  occurs  a  great  and  difficult 
enquiry,  which  it  is  not  easy  to  clear  up,  or 
which,  at  least,  has  not  yet  been  cleared  up ; 
first,  as  to  the  reason  of  this  great  discrepancy 
between  the  Greek  text  and  the  old  Latin 
version,  and  next,  as  to  the  reasons  why,  and 
the  method  by  which  the  Greek  text  was  alter- 
ed into  conformity  with  it  -/  for  it  is  evident 
that  this  has  taken  place  in  all  the  more  an- 
cient copies  mentioned,  §  6,  7. 

A  more  difficult  inquiry  is  that  into  the  origin  of  the 
different  recensions.  For  antiquity  has  handed  down  to 
us  but  little  clear  information  respecting  the  manuscripts 
used  by  Oric/en,  Pierhis,  Pamphihcs,  EusebiuSy  Euthalius, 
and  Athanasius.  The  Alexandrine  recension,  however, 
appears  to  have  been  made  from  apographi,  the  Western 
from  copies  of  single  books,  collected  by  private  individuals. 
[Those  who  wislx  for  a  fuller  knowledge  of  the  different  sys- 
tems of  recensions,  may  consult  (iriesbach's  ed.  N.  T.  Pro- 
leg,  t.  i.  72,  sq.  Hornets  Introduction,  vol.  ii.  sect.  2. 
Lmirence^s  Remarks   on  the   Classification  of  MSS.,  &c. 


AND  THEIR  USE.  39 

Oxford,  1814;  and  Enquiry  into  the  Integrity  of  the  Greek 
Vulgate,  &c.  by  F.  Nolan,  London,  1815.  The  Translator 
cannot  find  the  term  apograpM  to  have  been  used,  as  it  is  here 
by  Amnion,  in  opposition  to  codices.  By  apographi  are 
probably  meant  the  two  ancient  collections  of  the  sacred 
books,  one  containing  the  four  Gospels  and  called  to  ivay- 
yiXiov ;  the  other  containing  Acts,  thirteen  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul,  1  Peter,  and  1  John,  called  o  a.7roa-roXo;,  or  to  u.-7ro- 
(TToXtKov.  See  Schotfs  Isagoge  Hist,  in  Lib.  Nov.  Ffed,  p. 
553.] 

XV.  As  to  the  Greeco-Latin  copies,  it  is 
not  to  be  wondered  at  if  the  Latin  copyists 
were  induced,  through  the  differences  of  the 
Greek  texts,  and  their  own  ignorance  of  the 
Greek  language,  to  corrupt  the  text  by  at- 
tempting to  reconcile  it  with  the  Latin,  and 
to  substitute  more  familiar  words.  In  the 
same  way  the  Greeks  imagined  that  the  He- 
brew text  had  been  corrupted  by  the  Jews ; 
of  which  many  striking  examples  may  be  seen 
in  Michaelis  de  Var.  Lect.  N.  T.  p.  92,  100. 
Concerning  the  merely  Greek  copies,  written 
w^ithin  the  bounds  of  the  Greek  church,  it  is 
difficult  to  say  anything  with  certainty.  1  am 
inclined  to  conjecture  that  this  interpolation 
originated  with  the  Egyptians,  and  this  con- 
jecture is  strengthened  by  the  character  of  the 
Codex  Alexandrinus.  For  it  is  manifest,  and 
has  been  proved  by  others,  and  especially  by 
Richer  in   his   Concil.   Gener.  Hist,  that  the 


40  OF   xMANUSCRIPTS, 

Egyptian  Patriarchs,  from  the  time  of  Atlian- 
asius,  that  is,  from  the  fourth  century,  previous 
to  the  date  of  any  manuscript  now  existing", 
having-  sought  the  assistance  of  the  Roman 
church  against  the  decrees  of  councils,  were 
ever  after  too  much  inclined  to  favour  and 
imitate  the  Romanists.  This  mio-ht  extend 
so  far  as  to  induce^  them  to  alter  their  copies 
in  conformity  with  the  Latin  version,  as  an 
act  due  to  the  dignity  and  authority  of  the 
Roman  church.  They  appear  to  have  derived 
their  knowledge  of  the  Latin  language,  not 
only  from  their  intercourse  with  Rome,  to 
which  Wetstein  attributes  it,  L  19;  but  in  a 
much  greater  degree  from  their  proximity  to 
and  intercourse  with  the  province  of  Africa. 
This,  however,  is  a  matter  of  uncertainty,*  re- 
specting which  we  might  be  better  able  to  form 
a  judgment,  if  we  possessed  an  accurate  colla- 
tion of  the  Vatican  Manuscript,  and  knew 
whence  it  originally  came. 

s  Or  rather,  it  is  destitute  of  all  j)robal)ility.  For  even 
supposing  that  the  Alexandrines  had  thus  submitted  to  the 
ecclesiastical  yoke  of  Rome ;  still  it  is  scarcely  possible  to 
conceive  that  in  the  other  provinces  of  the  East,  the  Greek 
Text  would  be  altered  into  conformity  with  a  version  in  a 
barbarous  and  detested  langnage.  [See  also  Note  e,  §  xiii. 
VVe  may  oliserve,  also,  as  a  fact  quite  inconsistent  with 
Ernesti's  reasoning,  that  of  all  the  Eastern  C()])ies,  those  of 
the  Alexandrine  recension  are,  in  their  readings,  most  re- 


AND  THEIR  USE.  41 

mote  from  the  Western  recension,  or  the  Latin  version. 
The  Alexandrine  manuscript  A.  of  Griesbach,  is  to  be  con- 
sidered as  an  example,  not  of  the  Alexandrine,  but  rather  of 
the  Constantiaopolitan  recension.] 

XVI.  That  the  Egyptian  copies  had  not 
thus  been  corrupted  at  or  previous  to  the  time 
of  Orir/en,  appears  both  by  the  readings  which 
he  follows  in  his  Commentaries,  and  by  the 
text  which  he  formed  from  the  more  ancient 
copies.**  For  his  text  is  that  of  the  Csesarean 
copies,  which  had  frequently  been  copied, 
(See  Eusehius,  Vit.  Const.  Mag.  c.  36,)  and 
copies  collated  with  which  were  current 
throughout  all  Greece  and  Asia.  Nor  had 
this  interpretation  been  introduced,  or  at  any 
rate  approved  of,  in  the  time  of  Euthalius ; 
that  is,  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  as 
appears  from  the  fact,  that  having  visited 
Csesarea  by  directions  from  Athanasius,  Bishop 
of  Alexandria,  he  compared  his  own  copy 
of  the  Epistles  with  the  manuscripts  of 
Origen,  and  corrected  it  by  them.  He  in- 
deed complains  of  the  frequency  of  interpola- 
tions, which  he  removed  in  his  revision,  by 
consulting  ancient  and  good  copies;  but  he 
gives  no  account  as  to  how  this  interpolation 
was  introduced. 

^  See  Griesbach  de  Codicibus  iv.  Evangeliorum  Origeni- 
anis      Halle,  1771- 


42  OF  MANUSCRIPTS, 

XVII.  As  to  die  points  of  difference  betwen 
the  pure  Greek  copies  and  the  Latin  version, 
there  are  a  few  in  which  the  reading  of  the 
latter  has  some  resemblance  to  the  pure  origi- 
nal, so  that  we  may  see  whence  it  sprung :  as 
Matt.  vi.  24,  dv^s^srai,  sustinebit,  1.  Tim.  vi.  20, 
xsvo(pu)/iag,  novitates  verhorum,  &c.  In  other 
cases,  where  there  is  nothing  in  the  Greek 
text  from  which  the  Latin  reading  could  have 
originated,  and  yet  that  reading  gives  a  good 
sense,  as  1  John  iv.  3,  qui  solvit  lesum,  >-'oii, 
for  /A'/i  o/jyoXoyei,  some  may  suspect  with  Hem- 
sterhuis,  that  the  sacred  authors  themselves 
wrote  more  than  one  copy,  with  some  varia- 
tions in  the  expression,  retaining  the  sentiment, 
at  least  so  far  that  in  each  it  was  good  and  true  ; 
for  of  this  we  have  examples  in  works  of  hu- 
man production.^  If  this  were  the  case,  each 
reading  must  be  considered  as  having  the  au- 
thority of  inspiration.  But  this  conjecture  is 
rendered  improbable  by  the  fact,  that  this  dis- 
crepancy prevails,  not  in  one  or  a  few,  but  in 
all  the  copies ;  unless  we  suppose  that  the  sa- 
cred authors  wished  to  retain  a  copy  of  each 
epistle,  and  therefore  either  wrote  or  dictated 
each  twice.  But,  upon  the  whole,  various 
causes  of  interpolation  may  have  existed  in 
these  as  well  as  in  other  books,  of  which  nu)re 
liereafter.*^ 


ASB  THEIR  USE.  43 

'  So  Socrates  H.  E.  vii,  32,  and  some  of  the  Latin  3ISS. 
See  Griesbach's  Ed.  ad  loc.  Which  reading,  though  more 
difficult,  does  not  harmonize  with  the  simplicity  of  St.  John's 
style  ;  and  is  not  supported  by  the  authority  of  Manu- 
scripts and  versions.  "O  Xuu  is  the  scholium  of  a  later  in- 
terpreter. 

^  We   know  that  Aristophanes,    Cicero,  and  Apoilonius, 
published  second  editions  of  the  Nubes,   the  Academical 
Questions,  and  the  Argonautics.     But  we  can  hardly  sus- 
pect this  to  have  happened  with  respect  to  any  of  the  sa- 
cred books ;  for  the  poverty  of  the  times,  and  the  difficulty 
which  the  Apostles  had  in  writing  must  have  prevented  it- 
[As  the  Apostles  did  not  write  for  gain,  the  poverty  of  the 
times  would  be  no  impediment :  with  respect  to  their  "  im- 
peritia  scribendi,"  which  seems  a  singularly  favourite  topic 
with  Dr.  Ammon,  see  §  1.  N.  y.     Yet  the  supposition  of  a  I 
twofold  edition  seems  quite  unsupported  by  evidence,  and  I 
therefore  must  not  be  admitted  as  the  ground  of  anv  con-  ( 
elusions  respecting  the  probability  of  readings.] 

XVIII.  But  if  one  of  two  texts  has  been  in- 
terpolated by  mere  human  means,  we  must 
not  suppose  with  Morinus  (Exerc.  Bibl.  i.  2, 
3,)  and  others,  that  the  interpolation  has  been 
made  in  the  Greek  copies,  which  we  call  pure, 
but  rather  in  the  Latin  -}  because  the  Greek 
text  agrees  with,  the  most  ancient  books  of  the 
Greek  church,  and  of  the  Greek  doctors,  of  the 
first,  second,  and  third  centuries,  at  least  in 
most  points,  where  it  differs  from  the  Latin 
text.  It  is  well,  however,  that  these  differ- 
ences are  merely  verbal,  and  do  not  affect  the 
matter,  nor  disturb  the  analogy  of  faith. 


44  OF    MANUSCRIPTS, 

'  Scpulveda  defended  against  Erasmus  the  integrity  of  tlie 
Latin  text,  where  it  opposed  the  Greek.  But  even  Jerome 
complains  of  the  corruption  of  the  Latin  text,  in  his  Com- 
mentary on  Gal.  ii.  5,  where  IvSi  was  omitted  in  the  Latin 
version.  [All  this  seems  to  proceed  upon  the  supposition 
of  a  very  general  agreement  in  the  different  copies  of  the 
Latin  version.  But  for  the  discrepancies  of  the  Vulgate^ 
the  Brescia,  and  the  Verceli  manuscripts,  and  their  accord- 
ance with  different  classes  of  Greek  manuscripts.  See 
Nolan's  Enquiry,  p.  58,  seq.,  and  Home,  ii.  60.] 

XIX.  In  judging  of  manuscripts,  we  must 
consider  their  age  and  their  goodness.  The  age 
is  to  be  determined  from  the  style  of  the  let- 
ters, the  accents,  and  the  punctuation;  and 
also  from  other  circumstances  occurring  in  the 
manuscript."*  Thus  when  in  the  Alexandrine 
Manuscript,  we  find  the  Canons  of  Eusebius, 
and  the  Subscriptions  to  the  Epistles,  and  in 
these  the  words  ^sor^xog  for  the  Virgin,  and 
a^X'^'TKsy.o'xou^  we  know  at  once  that  it  must  have 
been  written  posterior  to  the  age  of  Eusebius 
and  Nestorius,  The  form  of  the  letters,  how- 
ever, is  not  a  very  safe  ground  of  judgment, 
for  it  is  clear  that  the  copyists,  either  through 
ignorance,  or  in  order  to  raise  the  value  of 
their  copies,  imitated  the  old  writing,  and  gave 
rather  a  facsimile  than  a  copy  ;  on  which  point 
there  is  a  remarkable  passage  in  J.  Gerson^  de 
libris  scribendis. 

™  Uncifil  letters  witliout  accents  or  breathings,  shotv  a  date 


AND  THEIR  USE.  45 

previous  to  the  ninth  rentury  ;  after  which  small  letters 
came  into  use.  Respecting  the  imitation  of  the  earlier  forms 
of  letters  by  the  copyists,  see  Waide  and  Kipling,  in  their 
Prolegomena  to  their  editions  of  the  Alexandrine  and  Cam- 
bridge manuscripts. 

XX.  The  goodness  of  manuscripts  is  to  be 
determined,  not  by  their  age  alone,  for  later 
manuscripts  may  be  good  when  they  have  been 
transcribed  from  other  good  ones ;  but  first 
from  the  paucity  and  slightness  of  the  faults 
and  variations,  and  next  from  the  preservation 
of  ancient  and  good  readings ;  from  which  two 
points  it  will  appear  to  have  been  written  by  a 
careful  copyist,  and  to  have  been  transcribed 
from  a  good  copy.  Nor  are  faulty  manuscripts 
totally  destitute  of  value,  for  they  sometimes 
contain  the  best  readings.  We  must  there- 
fore choose  from  all  the  best  readings,  accord- 
ing to  the  rules  of  the  critical  art,  which  will 
be  treated  of  in  their  proper  place." 

"  For  example,  in  Luke  ii.  22,  few  manuscripts  have 
utiTov,  which  appears  to  be  the  true  reading :  J\iost  have 
avrv;  or  avruv,  both  of  which  are  unsuitable  to  the  context. 
[The  goodness  of  a  manuscript  of  course  is  the  same  thing 
as  the  goodness  of  its  readings.  For  the  principles  on  which 
these  are  to  be  judged,  see  Griesbach's  Proleg.  i.  sect  3, 
p.  59,  seq.] 

XXI.  In  judging  of  the  age,  and  still  more 


46  OF  MANUSCRIPTS, 

in  judging  of  the  goodness  of  a  manuscript,  we 
must  guard  against  being  led  by  our  wishes  to 
attribute  to  it  more  authority  than  reality  and 
truth  admit  of;  and  this  we  are  tempted  to  do 
when  the  manuscript  is  our  own  property,  or 
when  it  favours  our  own  opinion  in  any  matter. 
Upon  the  whole,  none  ought  to  assume  the 
right  of  judging  on  these  points,  but  those 
whose  eyes  are  practised  in  the  various  forms 
of  letters,  and  whose  judgment  is  exercised  to 
the  accurate  investigation  of  critical  questions.® 

°  That  is  to  say,  those  who  have  themselves  carefully  in- 
spected manuscripts.  For  withoxit  such  practice  we  can 
form  no  certain  decision,  and  are  in  danger  of  being  in^ 
fiuenced  by  the  hints  of  others 


EDITIONS  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT.  47 


CHAPTER  IIL 

OF  EDITIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

I.  When  manuscript  copies  of  the  Greek 
Testament  began  to  be  drawn  from  libraries, 
and  to  be  submitted  to  the  notice  and  inspec- 
tion of  the  learned,  there  arose  a  laudable  de- 
sire of  editing  the  Greek  Text :  and  as  ma- 
nuscripts successively  appeared,  which  might 
be  of  service  in  correcting  the  text,  so  new 
editors  applied  themselves  to  the  task  of  pro- 
ducing new  and  corrected  editions.^ 

P  See  the  prefaces  to  the  Complutensian  and  Erasmus' 
editions. 

II.  But  although  the  manuscript  copies  of 
the  Greek  text  were  the  ground  work,  yet 
men  of  learning  and  experience  in  criticism 
sought  for  other  aids ;  especially  as  the  num- 
ber of  manuscripts  to  which  they  had  access 
was  not  great,  and  these  were  neither  very  an- 


8  EDITIONS    OF 

cient  nor  very  good.  Therefore  the  ancient 
versions,  in  languages  which  tliey  understood, 
began  to  be  applied  to  the  purposes  of  correc- 
tion, and  not  only  the  commentaries  of  the 
fathers  upon  the  several  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  but  also  their  other  writings,  in 
which  single  passages  are  either  commented 
upon,  or  in  any  way  noticed.  Nor  did  the 
early  editors  entirely  abstain  from  conjectural 
emendations,  as  is  quite  evident  from  the  re- 
censions of  Erasmus  and  Beza.*' 

••  The  conjectures  of  Erasmus  are  introduced  silently  ;  it 
is  sufficient  to  turn  over  the  Apocalypse  in  his  earlier  edi- 
tions. But  Beza  expressly  declares  in  his  Epistle  to  Queen 
Elizabeth,  "  Se  ex  ingenio  aut  simplici  conjectura,  ne  api- 
cem  qu idem  mutavisse."  [Erastmis  in  his  apology  aj^ainst 
Lee,  charges  these  upon  (Ecolampad'ms  and  Gerbelius,  who 
superintended  the  printing  of  his  first  edition. 

III.  Thus  then  the  Greek  text  was  formed 
in  the  early  editions,  and  was  afterwards  gra- 
dually emended,  at  least  such  was  the  inten- 
tion, by  others,  who  possessed  new  aids  ami 
instruments  for  this  purpose.  The  wants  of 
the  learned  also  continually  demanded  new 
editions,  the  supply  of  the  older  editions  be- 
ing always  unequal  to  the  demand. 

IV.  Of  these  then  we  siiall  treat  in  such  a 
way  as  to  arrange   them  into  clas.ses,  and  shall 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  49 

shew  from  what  sources,  and  how  each  was 
formed,  in  the  hope  of  thus  rendering  this  no- 
tice of  the  editions  useful  in  the  formation  of 
a  judgment  respecting  1;hem.  For  a  bare  ca- 
talogue of  editions,  containing  merely  a  notice 
of  the  editor,  with  the  time  and  place  of  pub- 
lication can  be  of  little  service/ 

^  The  editions  of  the  New  Testament  may  conveniently 
be  divided  into,  1st,  The  primai-y  or  fundamental,  as  the 
Complutensian  and  Erasmian.  2d,  Editions  which  have 
formed  upon  these,  but  improved  by  the  collation  of  more 
recently  discovered  manuscripts;  such  are  the  editions  of 
CoUncBus,  Bogard,  Stephen,  Beza  and  Harwood.  3d,  Edi- 
tions formed  from  a  comparison  of  several  editions,  such  are 
the  editions  of  Plantinus.  Rapheling,  Elzevir,  E.  Schmidt, 
and  Bengel.  4th,  Reprints  of  former  editions  without  any 
material  change  :  thus  the  Aldine  editions  follow  that  of 
Erasmus,  and  the  editions  of  Oporinus,  Walton,  Mill,  Kus- 
ter,  &c.  follow  that  of  Stephen.  5th,  Editions  which  con- 
tain critical  collections  of  the  various  readings,  as  those  of 
Walton^  Fell,  Maestricht,  Mill,  Kuster,  Bengel,  Wetstein, 
Griesbach,  Matth'di,  Birch,  Alter. 

V.  The  primary  editions  are,  at  most,  not 
more  than  three,  the  Complutensian,  that  of 
Erasmus,  and  that  of  Beza,  From  these  all 
the  succeeding  editions  have  been  derived ; 
some  containing  improvements,  and  others  be- 
ing mere  reprints. 

VI.  The   Complutensian   edition   was  pre- 

E 


50  EDITIONS  OF 

pared  and  printed  at  Complutum  (Alcala) 
A.  D.  lol4,  at  the  expense  of  Cardinal  Xime- 
nes;  but  was  publislied  somewhat  later,  A.  D. 
1517,  when  the  whole  work  of  the  Polyglot t 
Bible  was  finished.  In  arranging  the  text, 
the  editors  principally  used  Italian  manuscripts, 
and  those  of  a  recent  date,  namely  of  the  four- 
teenth and  fifteenth  centuries,  with  which  this 
edition  often  agrees,  against  the  earlier  copies, 
the  Greek  Fathers,  and  the  more  ancient  ver- 
sions. In  many  cases  it  is  altered  even  in  op- 
position to  their  own  manuscripts,  so  as  to  liar- 
monize  with  the  Latin  version,  as  it  then  ex- 
isted in  the  printed  copies ;  this  has  been  no- 
ticed by  Mill  and  Wetstein." 

*  The  manuscripts  used  by  the  Complutensian  eflitors, 
were  neither  numerous  nor  ancient.  It  is  certain  that  they 
did  not  possess  the  Vatican  MS.  Tliey  admitted  some 
texts  from  the  Latin  version,  as  1  .John  v.  7,  (See  (h-iesbach 
ad  loo.,)  and  in  the  Apocalypse  they  altered  many  things 
in  conformity  with  it.  They  did  not  sufficiently  use  the 
Oriental  versions,  and  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers.  See  the 
merits  of  this  edition,  canvassed  by  Goetz  in  his  Vertheidi- 
pung  der  Complutens.  Biliel.,  Hamb.  17C5 — 17C9,  and 
Walch  in  his  Neueste  Religionsgeschichte,  1771,  sq.  p.  iv. 

VII.  The  text  of  the  Complutensian  edition, 
was  repeated  in  the  Gospels  and  Acts  by  IL 
Stephni^^  in  his  fir.st  edition,  Paris  1546;  by 
J^laiiihnui,   both   in     the    Antwerp    Poly<^l(>tt, 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  51 

and  separately,  by  the  Geneva  editors ;  and  in 
the  Paris  Pohjglott :  As  far  also  as  it  was  fol- 
lowed by  Stephen,  it  has  been  repeated  by 
JVechel,  Walton,  Boeder,  Mill,^  and  Bengel.  In 
all  these,  however,  it  must  be  understood  that 
the  Complutensian  text  is  occasionally  depart- 
ed from,  sometimes  inadv^ertently,  and  some- 
times through  design. 

^  The  elder,  father  of  Henry  and  Robert  Stephen. 

°  MilVs  text  follows  the  third  edition  of  Stephen.  It  n'as 
published  at  Oxford  1707,  reprinted  by  Kiister  1710,  and 
at  Leipzig  1723.  A  great  mass  of  useful  learning  is  con- 
tained in  the  Prolegomena.  A  collection  of  various  readings 
from  many  manuscripts  and  fathers,  and  from  the  Latin  in- 
terpretation of  the  Oriental  versions,  is  added  ;  which  gave 
occasion  to  the  Criticce  Pseudo-MilliancB  of  Bodenius,  Halle 
1767. 

VIII.  Erasmus  published  his  first  edition  of 
the  Greek  Testament  in  1516,  with  the  assist- 
ance of  CEcolainjjadius,  Capito,  and  Gerhelius. 
In  the  Gospels  he  made  a  Basle  manuscript 
of  the  fifteenth  century  his  base,  and  in  the 
remainder  another,  correcting  its  readings,  how- 
ever, from  Theophylactand  other  Fathers,  from 
the  Latin  Version,  and  from  conjecture.  To- 
wards the  conclusion  of  the  Apocalypse  lie 
translated  into  Greek,  from  the  Latin  version, 
what  was  wanting  in  the  text  of  his  manu- 
script.    This  text,    in  the  reprints  of  1519, 


52  EDITIONS  OF 

1522,  1527,  1535,=^  was  altered  from  the  Fa- 
thers principally,  though  a  few  other  manu- 
scripts were  also  employed :  in  the  fourth  edi- 
tion,  1527,  it  was  altered  from  the  Complu- 
tensian,  which  alterations  are  enumerated  by 
Mill.  The  remarkably  disputed  verse,  1  John 
V.  7,  w^as  first  inserted  in  the  third  edition  : 
The  cause  of  these  variations  is  to  be  found  in 
the  multiplicity  of  difficult  tasks,  which  the 
editor  was  carrying  on  at  the  same  time ;  from 
the  fewness  of  his  manuscripts,  especially  at 
the  commencement;  and  finally,  from  the  in- 
consistency of  his  judgment,  which  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at,  considering  the  time  at  which  he 
lived. 

^  The  most  correct,  and  therefore  the  most  rare  of  Eras- 
mus' editions,  are  those  of  1516,  1522.  See  Wetsteiri's 
Proleg.  N.  T.  i.  120,  seq. 

IX.  The  text  of  Erasmus,  though  not  al- 
ways that  of  the  same  edition,  was  principally 
followed  by  Aldus,^  Colinceus^  Bogard,^  R. 
Stephen  in  the  Epistles,  by  some  of  the  Basil 
editions,  as  the  Hervagian,  and  partly  by  i?oec/er, 
with  the  exceptions  mentioned  at  §  7.  The 
Aldine  differs  only  in  errors  of  the  press,  which 
Erasmus  himself  mentions  as  various  readings. 
R,  Stephen  in  his  first  edition,  1546,  and  his 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  53 

second,  1549,  wliicli  goes  by  tlie  name  of  the 
mirifica  edition,*  departs  from  the  text  of 
Erasmus  in  cases  where  it  is  opposed  to  all  the 
manuscripts,  as  he  had  before  done  in  the  edi- 
tion of  CoHncEus,  which  he  corrected.  In  his 
third  edition  of  1550,  he  followed  Erasmus' 
last  edition  of  1535,  with  almost  no  variation, 
and  this  text  was  preserved  in  the  others  above 
mentioned.  Luther  in  his  version  generally 
followed  the  first  edition  of  Erasmus,  as  no 
other  could  then  be  obtained;  though  some 
maintain  that  he  used  the  Haguenan  edition  of 
1521.  It  is  unnecessary  to  specify  the  less 
important  editions  derived  from  these. 

y  Published  in  1518,  fol.,  and  very  rare»  Upon  the  whole, 
Aldus  follows  Erasmus,  but  differs  from  him  in  about  a 
hundred  places.  The  reason  for  these  differences  is  not 
apparent ;  for  in  other  places  even  the  errors  of  the  press 
are  retained. 

^  Paris,  1543,  8vo.  The  basis  is  the  text  of  Erasmus,  but 
sometimes  Colinceus  is  followed. 

^  From  the  commencement  of  the  preface,  "  O  mirlficam 
regis  liberalitatem  /"  It  contains,  however,  fourteen  errors, 
corrected  in  the  third  edition,  1550,  which  is  generally  con- 
sidered immaculate.  See,  however,  Godf.  Olearius  on  IMatt. 
p.  130=  It  is  a  most  elegant  edition,  and  celebrated  as  con- 
taining the  first  collection  of  various  readings.  There  was 
also  a  fourth  edition  published  at  Geneva,  1551,  in  8vo ; 
and  a  fifth  at  Paris,  1569,  in  12mo.  [The  fourth  edition 
is  remarkable,  as  being  the  first  in  which  the  division  of 
verses  was  introduced  :  the  Paris  edition  of  1569  was  edited 
by  the  younger  Stephen.] 


54  EDITIONS  OF 

X.  Tlieodore  Beza  formed  his  first  text, 
published  in  1559  and  1565,  upon  the  text 
of  Stephens'  third  edition  of  1550.  i^fter- 
wards  having  used,  for  the  correction  of  the 
text,  the  Cambridge  and  Clermont  manuscripts, 
the  Latin  version,  and  the  Syriac  and  Arabic 
of  the  Acts,  and  of  the  two  Epistles  to  the  Co- 
rinthians, he  published  editions  in  158*2,  1589, 
and  1598,  in  which  he  also  inserted  his  own 
conjectures,  and  failed  to  obtain  the  character 
of  a  dilio-ent  and  modest  critic.*^  This  text 
was  reprinted  by  Henry  Stephen,  Er.  Schmidt, 
and  others.  Schmidt  made  some  rash  altera- 
tions, of  which,  as  happened  frequently  in 
those  days,  no  notice  was  taken. 

'•  See  Wetstein's  Froleg.  p.  146,  seq.,  and  Hug's  Intro- 
duction, p.  2G9,  seq.  [Beza's  edition  of  1559  was  merely  a 
reprint  of  Stephen's  fourth  edition,  but  that  of  15G5,  with 
tlie  succeeding,  contains  a  text  formed  by  Beza  himself. 
See  Griesbach's  Proleg.  i.  p.  31.  The  Translator  cannot 
understand  the  expression  "  Caiterum  id  exemj)lum  tum 
alii,  tum  Henr.  Stephanus,  Er.  Schmidiusexpressere."  H. 
Stephens  printed  the  ed.  of  15G5,  and  all  the  rest  except 
the  last.  Erasmus  Sclimid  left  a  corrected  copy  of  Beza's 
Laiiii  version,  which  Avas  published  in  folio,  Nuremburg, 
1658.  Noesselt  in  his  Anweisilng  zur  Kentniss,  &c.  does 
not  mention  Beza's  edition  of  1559,  probably  considering 
it  as  a  mere  reprint  of  Stephen.] 

XL  I'pon  Stephen's  third  edition,  and  the 
text  of  Beza,  a  new  text  was  formed,  it  does 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  55 

not  appear  by  whom,  and  published  by  the 
FAzevirs,  in  1624.'^  This  text  was  adopted  by 
Curcellceus^  and  Leusden,  and  after  them  by  the 
Oxford  editors,^  McBstricht,^  Wetstein,^  and 
ocher  more  recent  and  ordinary  editors,  as 
those  of  Leipzig}^  This  text,  through  the  pre- 
valent want  of  knowledge  on  such  matters, 
for  a  long  time  possessed  so  much  authority, 
that  those  who  departed  from  it  incurred  the 
charge  of  vitiating  the  very  words  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

'^  The  editor's  name  is  still  unknown  :  on  the  title  appears, 
ex  regiis  aliisque  optimis  editionibus  cum  cura  expressum. 

^  Consult  Calovius  de  Curcellcei  edit,  socinizante. 

«  First  by  Fell  iu  1665,  who  follows  the  text  of  Walton. 
The  second  is  of  the  year  1702.  \^Walton''s  text  is  that 
printed  in  the  5th  vol.  of  the  London  Polygiott.  FelVs 
edition  was  reprinted  at  I^eipzig  in  1697  and  1702.  at  Ox- 
ford in  1703,  under  the  charge  of  Gregory. ^ 

*  With  various  readings  from  the  Vienna  Manuscript  and 
Fell's  edition.      The  critical  canons  prefixed  are  of  no  value. 

s  In  the  edition  of  1751,  which  follows  the  text  of  Elzevir, 
and  contains  a  rich  collection  of  various  readings  from 
Manuscripts,  Fathers,  and  Versions.  Semler  republished 
the  prolegomena  and  critical  tracts,  at  Halle  1762  and  1764. 
[A  new  edition  is  now  in  course  of  publication,  edited  bv  Dr. 
J.  A.  Lotze  at  Rotterdam,  who  proposes,  with  the  assistance 
of  the  later  critics,  to  correct  the  many  errors  which  appear 
iu  the  various  readings  of  Wetstein,  especially  in  those 
taken  from  the  oriental  versions.  The  first  Fasciculus  only, 
containing  the  Prolegomena,  has  yet  appeared.] 

^  Rechenberg  and  Reineck. 


56  EDITIONS  OF 

XII.  A  species  of  Variorum  text  was  pub- 
lished by  J,  A,  Bengel^^  at  Tubingen,  1 734, 
founded  on  the  Complutensian  edition,  and 
those  of  Erasmus  and  the  Stephens ;  not  a 
syllable  being  admitted  which  had  not  previ- 
ously been  printed,  and  the  highest  authority 
being  given  to  R.  Stephen.  This  selection 
of  readings,  was  however  neglected,  and  some- 
times altered  by  the  editor  in  his  Gnomon. 
Bengel's  text  was  reprinted  at  Leipzig  in 
1737,  and  elsewhere.*^ 

■  This  edition  was  intended  to  contain  the  cream  of  the 
best  readings,  selected  from  printed  copies  only.  Various 
readings  are  given  in  the  margin,  with  the  judgment  of  the 
editor.  An  Apparatus  Criticus  is  added,  containing  many 
extracts  from  the  Fathers,  and  additions  to  MiWs  edition. 
See  Wetstehi's  Proleg.  p.  15(>. 

^  As  at  Tubingen  in  177G.  To  these  we  must  add  Gries- 
bach^s  edition  of  the  New  Testament  1775  and  1777,  which 
has  formed  a  new  aera  in  the  criticism  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. A  second  corrected  edition  was  published  at  Halle 
and  London,  in  179C  and  180G,  2  vols.  8vo.  HarwoocTs 
London  1776  and  17«4,  2vols.  12mo.  Matthsi's  1782-1788, 
in  12  vols,  respecting  which  it  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  the 
judgment  of  Michaelis  in  the  Bibliotheca  Or.  P.  xx.  p.  107, 
seq.  and  of  Eichhorn  in  the  Bibliotheca  Lit.  Bibl.  Univ.  ii. 
;^02.  See  the  Prolegomena  of  Matthcei  to  his  editio  N.  T. 
Cnmpendiaria,  vol  i.  Wittenberg  1803.  For  the  same  rea- 
son we  shall  pass  over  the  eilition  of  Alter,  Vienna  1786, 
see  Allg.  Bibl.  d.  Bild.  Lit.  II.  p.  102.  The  edition  of 
Birch,  Copenhagen,  [Mavnia*,]  1788  is  of  tlieliigliest  value, 
on   account   of    the   various   readings  collected   from   the 


THE  NEW  TESTA3IENT.  57 

Vatican.  Escurial,  and  Copenhagen  manuscripts,  and  from  the 
Philoxenian  and  Jerusalem  versions.  The  edition  of  Knappe, 
Halle  1797,  distinguished  hy  an  excellent  preface,  and  that 
of  Schott,  Lips.  I8O0,  with  a  new  Latin  version,  both  follow 
the  text  of  Griesbach. 

XIII.  Great  expectations  were  formed  of 
the  edition  promised  by  R.  Bentley^  of  which 
a  specimen  was  published  in  17*20,  1721.  The 
plan  of  the  editor,  as  given  by  himself,  shews 
that  he  would  have  attached  too  great  weight 
to  those  Greek  manuscripts,  which,  in  our 
judgment,  have  been  interpolated  from  the 
Latin  version,  and  to  those  Latin  manuscripts 
which  he  supposed  to  contain  the  genuine 
version  of  Jerome,  which  certainly  followed 
the  text  of  Origen ;  and  thus  he  would  have 
considered  his  text  as  a  restoration  of  that  of 
Orio-en.  In  this  matter  the  illustrious  editor 
fell  into  more  than  one  error.^ 

'  See,  Prolegomena  ad  N.  T.  Grseci  Editionem  accura- 
tissimam,  Amst.  1730,  and  Wetstebi's  Proleg.  p.  153. 

XIV.  This  review  of  the  editions  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  the  account  thus  given 
of  the  origin  of  the  text,  which  we  now  call 
\\\Q  received  ox  Vulgate^  may  enable  the  student 
to  form  some  estimate  of  the  value  of  each  par- 
ticular edition,  and  also  of  that  received  text, 
which  some  ignorant  persons  appear  almost  to 


58  EDITIONS  OF 

revere,  and  to  consider  as  havino-  been  provi- 
dentially preserved  from  corruption.  The  re- 
view, it  is  hoped,  may  tend  to  render  them 
more  moderate  in  their  judgment.™ 

""  See  Hug's  Introduction,  I.  p.  270,  and  Mattha'i  pref. 
ad  Evang.  Matt.  p.  28,  [The  texlus  receptu>i  is  that  of 
Elzevir's  edition,  see  §  xi.] 

XV.  The  authority  of  any  text  or  edition 
depends  upon  the  authority  of  the  manuscripts 
from  which  it  was  derived.  He,  therefore, 
will  be  able  rightly  to  use  the  published  edi- 
tions, who  knows,  in  the  first  place,  whence 
and  how  the  text  was  formed,  and  in  the  next 
place,  how  to  apply  the  rules  of  sound  criti- 
cism to  passages  where  the  readings  are  doubc- 
ful  or  various.  What  these  rules  are  will  be 
shown  in  their  proper  place. 

XVI.  In  determining  the  origin  from  which 
any  text  has  been  derived,  we  must  be  care- 
ful not  rashly  to  credit  the  assertions  of  the 
editor,  as  to  the  multitude,  antiquity,  and  ex- 
cellence of  his  manuscripts ;  for  unfounded 
assertions  of  this  kind  were  very  common 
among  editors.  Besides,  when  they  speak  of 
Codices^  we  are  not  to  understand  them  as  speak- 
ing exclusively  of  Greek  manuscripts,  few  of 
which  were  possessed  by  the  earlier  editors ;  but 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  59 

as  comprehending-  the  Latin  version,  the  Greek 
and  Latin  Fathers,  and  sometimes  even  pre- 
vious printed  editions.  Ignorance  of  this  usage 
of  language  in  such  matters,  has  led  many  very 
grossly  to  misunderstpnd  the  assertions  of  the 
Complutensian  editors,  Erasmus  and  Stephen. 
LTpon  the  whole,  those  who  wish  for  an  accu- 
rate knowledge  of  editions  must  consult  Mill, 
Ben(/el,  and  JVetstehi.^- 

°  Together  with  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  continued  after  Le 
Long  and  Boerner  bv  Masch,  Halle  177^* 


60  OF  VERSIONS. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

OF  VERSIONS. 

1.  As  the  truths  of  Christianity  were  speedily 
communicated  in  every  direction,  to  nations, 
either  totally  ig-norant  of  Greek,  or  at  least 
vernacularly  using  some  other  language,  the 
necessity  for  translations  of  the  inspired  books 
arose  immediately  after  the  Apostolic  age.°  It 
may  be  going  too  far  to  assert  with  Walton  and 
Garhellus^  that  without  translations  the  church 
among  such  nations,  the  Latin  church  for  ex- 
ample, could  not  have  continued  to  exist ;  but 
it  is  clear  that  she  would  have  been  exposed  to 
great  difficulties  and  inconvenience. 

°  Almost  every  where  converts  were  to  be  found,  who  did 
not  understand  Greek.  For  the  ancient  versions  generally, 
see  Semler's  Versuch,  die  gemeinmitziue  Aiislcyiing  des  N. 
T.  zu  bef'ordern.  Attempt  to  further  the  popular  interpre- 
tation of  the  N.  T.  p.  ICO.  sq. 

II.  The  translation  then  of  the  sacred  books 
into  many  languages  at  a  very  early  period,  is 


OF  VERSIONS.  61 

proved  by  the  evidence  of  JEuseljius  in  Orat.  in 
Laudem  Const,  Mag.  p.  662 ;  and  other  Fathers 
of  the  ChiirchjP  quoted  by  Fabricms,  BibL 
Grsec.  iv.  p.  191,  first  edition;  the  application 
of  whose  evidence  is  however  denied  by  Blan- 
chinus  in  his  Proleg.  Evangeliarii,  i.  78.  Their 
testimony,  in  fact,  proves  the  translation  of 
the  New  Testament  into  other  languages,  but 
does  not  precisely  mark  the  time  when  these 
translations  were  formed. 

P  As  Theodoret  and  Chrysostom.  TertulHan  in  the 
second  century  uses  a  Latin  version,  as  a  work  of  undis- 
puted authority.  See  Semler,  note  on  Wetstein's  Proleg. 
p.  684,  sq. 

III.  The  most  ancient  known  version,  sup- 
posed by  some  to  have  been  made  by  an  Apos-  ( 
tie,  or  by  a  cotemporary  of  the  Apostles,  is  the  \ 
Syriac.^     This    version    was    first   introduced  i 
into  Europe  by  a  certain  Moses,   sent  as  agent 
by  Ignatius^  Patriarch  of  the  Maronites,  to  the 
Popes  Leo   X.  and  Julius  III.     It  was  first 
published   at  Vienna  in  1555,  by  Alht   Wid- 
nianstadt ;   and   afterwards    by    Plantinus   and 
Hutter.     The  Apocalypse  having  been  added 
by  L.  De  Dieu,  and  2d  Peter,  2d  and  3d  John, 
and  Jude,  by  Pocock,  the  whole  was  reprinted 
in  the   London  and  Paris  Polyglotts,  by  Gut- 
bier  [at  Hamburgh,   1664],  and  by  C.  Schaaf 


6*2  OF  VERSIONS. 

at  Leydeii,  1709,  1717.  Tremellius  [Geneva, 
1569,]  added  the  passaoe  1  John  v.  7,  trans- 
lated by  himself  from  tlie  Greek,  but  placed 
it  in  the  marjjfin,  while  Guthier  introduced  it 
into  the  text.  Both  he  and  the  editors  of  the 
London  Polyglott  admitted  into  the  text  the 
narrative  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery, 
John  viii.  1 — 11,  from  the  Usher  Manuscript, 
which  ought  to  have  been  placed  in  the  margin. 

1  In  Asseman's  Bibl.  Oriental.  II.  86,  a  manuscript  of 
this  version  is  attributed  to  the  first  century,  on  the  autho- 
rity of  an  addition  at  the  end.  But  these  additions,  or  sub- 
scriptions as  they  are  called,  merit  little  attention  in  critical 
matters.  This  version  called  the  Peshito,  that  is,  the  simple 
or  literal,  was  formed  before  the  Eutychian  and  Nestorian 
Schism,  and  probably  in  the  second  century.  [The  Peshito, 
however,  is  not  a  literal  version  ;  it  is  by  no  means  so  literal 
as  the  Philoxenian.  JMichaelis  renders  the  word  Pe&hito, 
pure,  uncorrupted,  accurate.  1 

IV.  It  has  been  doubted  whether  the  Pes- 
hito Syriac  version  was  made  from  tlie  original 
Greek,  or  from  a  Latin  version.  Michaclis  in 
Var.  Lect.  N.  T.  §  '21,  contends  that  it  was 
formed  from  the  Greek ;  and  Simon,  Hist.  Crit. 
c.  13,  14,  15,  shews  that  it  more  frequently 
agrees  with  the  Greek  text  against  tlie  Latin, 
than  with  the  Latin  against  the  Greek ;'  this, 
however,  sometimes  liappens,  and  thence  we 
may  conclude,  that  it  was  formed  from  a  loss  in- 


OF  VERSIONS.  63 

terpolatecl  copy,  but  yet  from  a  copy  with  some 
interpolations.  From  the  Syriac  was  formed 
the  old  Persian  version  of  the  four  Gospels, 
which,  with  a  translation  by  Sam.  Clarke^  and 
notes  by  T,  Graves,  was  published  in  the 
London  Polyglott.  Another  version,  part  of 
which  was  published  at  London  in  1657,  and 
afterwards,  the  whole  by  Wlieeloch  and  Pier- 
son,  was  made  from  the  Greek,  but  as  late  as 
the  fourteenth  century. 


'^  There  can  now  lie  no  doubt  but  that  the  Syriac  version 
was  made  directly  from  the  Greek  :  see  Marsh's  Michaelis 
II.  23.  Ed.  4th.  Michaehs,  however,  in  another  work, 
Curae  in  Vers.  Syriacam  Act.  Apost.  attempts  to  persuade 
us  that  it  was  interpolated  from  the  Latin.  It  seems  more 
pr«)bable  that  this  version  suffered  changes  in  the  eighth 
and  ninth  centuries,  to  bring  it  into  conformity  with  the 
Greek  copies  of  the  western  recension.  It  therefore  abounds 
in  false  readings,  and  cannot  be  relied  upon  in  critical  mat- 
ters, till,  by  the  assistance  of  the  Arabic  and  Persian  ver- 
sions, it  shall  have  been  reduced  to  its  pristine  purity.  See 
Reusch,  Syrus  interpres  cum  fonte  N.  T.  Grseco  collatus. 
Lips.  1741 ;  and  Weber  de  Usu  vers.  Syr,  hermen.  liips. 
1778,  but  above  all  Storr^s  Observations,  super  N,  T.  vers. 
Syriac,  Stuttg.  1772,  and  Hug's  Introduction,  i.  p.  292. 
Michaelis  ii.  p.  25.  [RIarsh,  allowing  the  strong  coinci- 
dences of  the  Peshito  and  the  Western,  or  Latinizing  ma- 
nuscripts, accounts  for  it,  by  supposing  that  the  more  re- 
mote churches  in  Western  Europe  and  Eastern  Asia,  had 
more  ancient,  and  consequently  purer  copies,  than  the  in- 
termediate churches  using  the  Constantinopolitan  recen- 
sion.] 


64  OF  VERSIONS. 

V.  Besides  this  ancient  Syriac  or  Peshito 
version,  there  exists  another  more  recent  one, 
called  the  Philoxenian,  from  Xenyas  or  Phil- 
oxenus^  under  whose  authority  it  was  made  by 
a  certain  Polycarp.  It  is  also  called  Heradean, 
from  Thomas  Bishop  of  Heraclea,  who  care- 
fully revised  it  :^  and  sometimes  goes  under  the 
name  of  BarsalibcBus,  who  brought  it  to  light 
in  the  twelfth  century.  For  information  re- 
specting this  version,  the  reader  may  consult 
Michaelis'  Introduc.  ii.  58,  seq.,  or  rather  the 
Dissertation  of  Ridley,  at  the  end  of  the  Wet- 
stein  tracts,  edited  by  Semler. 

*  The  Philoxenian  version  was  published  by  White  at  Ox- 
ford, 1773.  Storr,  as  is  usual  with  him,  gives  a  learned 
judgment  on  its  merits  in  Eichhorn's  Repertorium,  vii.  1, 
seq.  It  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  Hierosohjmiian  ver- 
sion,  in  a  Chaldee  dialect,  made  at  Jerusalem  between  the 
fourth  and  sixth  centuries.  See  Adler,  versiones  N.  T. 
Syriacse,  Simplex,  Philox.  et  Hieros.  denuo  examinatae,  Haf- 
niae,  1780;  iii*  137.  [For  an  account  of  Adler's  work,  see 
Michaelis'  Introd.  ii.  75.  Philocvenus  was  Bisliop  of  iliera- 
polis  from  4C8  to  518,  and  Polycarp  his  rural  bishop.  Dio- 
nysms  Barsalilxxus  was  Bishop  of  Amida,  from  1 17G  to 
1171.  Full  information  on  all  these  points  maybe  found 
in  Assemari's  Bibliotheca  Orientalis.] 

VI.  The  Coptic  version,  edited  by  Daniel 
Wilkins,  a  Prussian,  at  Oxford,  1716.  With 
a   Latin    version,  which,  in  the  opinion  of  La 


OF  VERSIONS.  65 

Croze  and  Jablonski  is  far  from  correct,  al- 
though it  be  not  more  ancient  than  the  time 
of  Origen,  as  Wilkins  supposes  it  to  be,  a  sup- 
position disproved  by  the  division  of  the  Gos- 
pels, according  to  the  Eusebian  canons,  and 
of  the  Epistles  by  the  Griyjj,  which  being  the 
invention  of  Euthalius,  bring  it  down  to  the 
fifth  century  :  is  yet  of  great  antiquity.  Critics 
doubt  whether  it  was  formed  from  the  Greek 
or  the  Latin;  Mill  in  his  Proleg.  N.  1407, 
maintaining  the  former,  and  Whitby,  i.  4,  1, 
the  latter  opinion.*  It  certainly  often  agrees 
with  the  Latin  against  the  Greek.  See,  for 
example,  the  Var.  Lect.  at  1  Cor.  end  of  cli.  vi., 
and  beginning  of  ch.  vii.  But  these  passages 
might  have  been  previously  interpolated  from 
the  Latin  into  the  Greek  copies. 

*  It  is  now  ascertained  that  the  Coptic  version  was  made  j 
in  the   fifth   century,    and  from   the  Greek.     It  contains  j 
many  valuable  various  readings,   which  agree  in  general 
with  the  quotations  of  the  Alexandrine  Fathers.     See  the 
select  readings  given  by  Woide  in  Michaelis  Bibl.  Orient. 
X.    198,   and,  Fragmentum  Evangelii  S.    Johannis  grseco- 
coptico-thebaicum,  ex  ed.  Georgii.   Rome,  1789.     Miinier, 
on  the  age  of  the  Coptic  version,  in  Eichorn''s  Bibliotheca 
Lit.   Bib.  Univers.  iv.  1  and  385.     [The  date  of  this  ver- 
sion is  not  so  indisputably  ascertained  as  Dr.  Ammon  sup-( 
poses.     At  any  rate,  ErnestVs  argument  is  of  no  weight ; 
for,  upon  the  same  principle,  we  might  contend  that  the 
Is'ew  Testament  in  Greek  was  not  written  before  the  time 


66  OF  VERSIONS. 

of  R.  Stephen^  because  our  copies  have  his  division  of  verses. 
For  a  specimen  of  the  readings  of  the  Coptic,  see  Marsh's 
Notes  on  Michaeh's,  ii.  589.  The  biblical  student,  who  is 
unacquainted  with  the  eastern  languages,  must  be  careful 
not  to  give  implicit  credit  to  the  Latin  translation  of  the 
Oriental  versions,  especially  those  made  by  the  first  editors, 
which  are  often  incorrect.  Between  the  Coptic  and  TEthio- 
pian,  some  mention  ought;  to  be  made  of  the  Sahidic  version, 
in  tlie  dialect  of  Upper  lH;ypt.  Manuscripts,  or  portions  of 
manuscripts  of  this  version  are  preserved  in  the  Libraries 
of  Rome,  Paris,  Oxford,  Berlin,  and  Venice.  Part  of  St. 
John's  Gospel  was  publislied  at  Rome  by  Georgi  in  1789. 
Other  fragments  were  prepared  by  Woide,  and  completed 
and  published  by  Dr.  Ford  at  Oxford  in  1799.  Mingarelli 
also  pu Wished  some  fragments,  Bologna,  1785.  The  version 
is  ancient,  Georgi  attributes  it  to  the  fourth  century.  It 
agrees  very  closely  with  the  Codex  Cantabrigiensis.  For  a 
collation  of  it  with  thatiMS.,  see  Marsh's  Notes  on  Michae- 
lis,  ii.  593.] 

VII.  The  Ethiopic  version  is  supposed  to 
be  referred  to  by  Chrysostom  in  his  Homily  on 
John  ii.,  and  consequently,  the  existing  ver- 
sion is  supposed  to  be  of  a  date  previous  to  his 
time.  But  from  that  passage  nothing  certain 
can  be  concluded.  The  Ethiopians,  (Abyssi- 
niiniN)  thtmselves, attributeit  to  8t.  Frffmentias, 
who  flourished  in  the  time  of  Constantine  the 
(Trent.  Michaelis  in  his  Var.  Lect.  N.  T  j  '24, 
25,  n.aintains  that  it  was  made  from  the  Crreek. 
Its  frcqurnt  accordances  with  the  Latin  ver- 
sion, may  be  accounted  for  from  tlie  fact,   that 


OF  VERSIONS.  67 

it  was  published  at  Rome  in  1548-9,  by  Tessa 
TziOf  an  Abyssinian  monk,  from  a  defective 
copy,  whose  deficiencies  were  supplied  from  the 
Latin.  The  republication  of  it  in  the  London 
Polyglot  is  still  more  erroneous.  The  learned 
have  pronounced  both  the  Latin  translations 
extremely  faulty,  see  Michaelis  Var.  Leet.  N. 
T.,  §  34,  35,  and  the  preface  to  Bodes  Collatio 
Evang.  Matt,  cum  vers,  ^thicp.  Halle,  1749. 
This  collation,  however,  ought  not  to  have  been 
made  with  the  printed  copy  alone,  which  the 
Abyssinians  disapprove  of,  as  differing  from 
their  own  copies.  See  Ludolf  Prsef.  in  Lex. 
^thiop. 

VIII.  The  Armenia??,  version  was  published 
at  Amsterdam  in  1668,  by  Usca.n,  an  Arme- 
nian Bishop,  who  had  been  sent  by  the  rulers 
of  his  church  for  this  purpose.  The  Armenians 
say  that  this  version  was  made  by  Miesrob, 
the  inv^entor  of  the  Armenian  character,  of 
whose  life  some  account  is  given  by  Sainjore, 
i.  e.  R.  Simon  in  the  Bibliotheque  Critique,  iv. 
196.  Moses  Chorenensis,  Hist.  lib.  iii.  313,  in- 
forms us  that  Miesrob  was  assisted  by  his  dis- 
ciple Moses,  and  that  the  version  was  mLule 
from  a  Greek  copy  brought  from  the  Council 
of  Ephesus  ;  though  elsewhere,  lib.  iii.  299, 
he  asserts  that  the  translation  liad  been  made. 


6^  OF  VERSIONS. 

or  at  least  attempted  before.  It  is  believed, 
however,  to  have  been  interpolated  from  the 
Latin  by  Usean,  as  he  himself  confesses  in  his 
preface."  Certainly  the  text  1  John  v.  7,  which 
is  in  his  printed  edition,  is  not  found  in  the 
manuscripts.  See  La  Croze,  Thes.  Epist.  i. 
359.  Nachricht  von  einer  Hallischcn  Biblio- 
thek,  iii.  189.  Also  Simon's  Hist.  Crit.  iv.  17, 
his  Bibl.  Crit.  iv.  193,  and  his  Lettres  Choisies, 
p.  iv.  n.  24. 

"  This  interpolation  does  not,  however,  extend  to  all  the 
books.  It  agrees  generally  with  the  Coptic  version.  Origan 
and  Manuscripts  of  the  Alexandrine  recension.  See  Hug^ 
I.  322,  seq. 

IX.  The  Arabic  versions,  some  made  from 
the  Syriac  or  Coptic,  others  from  the  Greek, 
are  all  supposed  to  be  of  a  later  date  than 
the  Mohammedan  sera.  The  version  of  the 
Gospels,  which  was  published  at  Rome  in 
1591  and  1619,  agrees  in  many  points  with 
the  Syriac,  while  it  differs  from  it  in  others. 
It  was  reprinted  in  the  Paris  Polyglot,  to- 
gether with  a  more  recent  version  of  the 
other  books,  but  stupidly  interpolated  by  Ga- 
briel Sionites,  Hence  it  was  transferred  to 
the  London  Polyglot,  but  corrected  from  ma- 
nuscripts. Another  version  of  the  whole  New 
Testament  was  published  by  Erpenias  at  Ley- 


OF  VERSIONS.  69 

den,  1616,  from  a  Coptic  eoTpj,  without  in- 
terpolation or  version.  In  the  Gospels  it  ge- 
nerally agrees  with  the  Latin ;  in  the  Epistles 
Erpenius  thinks  it  follows  the  Syriac  version, 
and  in  the  Apocalypse  it  follows  the  Coptic, 
as  Michaelis  thinks,  Var.  Lect.,  N.  T.  §  29. 
Those  Arabic  versions  alone  have  any  critical 
value,  which  were  made  from  the  Greek  by 
the  Melchites,  who  use  the  Greek  language  in 
their  religious  services.'^ 

^  No  accurate  collection  of  the  Arabic  versions,  with  a 
discrimination  of  their  ages,  as  yet  exists.  See  Storr  de 
Evangeliis  Arahicis,  Tubing.  1775,  and  Hug's  Introd.  I. 
354.  [By  a  Coptic  copy  is  meant  an  Arabic  Manuscript, 
written  in  Upper  Egypt.  The  date  of  this,  Erpenius'  MS. 
is  of  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries.  See  Marsh, 
Notes  on  Michaelis  II.  604.  The  Roman  Propaganda 
published  an  Arabic  Bible  in  1671,  under  the  inspection  of 
Sergius  Risius  Bishop  of  Damascus,  and  the  English  Society 
for  promoting  Christian  Knowledge,  an  Arabic  N.  T.  in 
1727,  edited,  and  in  some  places  altered  from  the  text  of  the 
Polyglots  by  Salomon  Negri.  The  N.  T.  in  the  modern, 
Arabic  was  published  in  1816,  at  Calcutta  by  the  British 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society.] 

X.  Ulphilas,  Bishop  of  the  Goths,  is  said  to 
have  translated  the  New  Testament  into  the 
Gothic  language  in  the  fourth  century ;  and  it 
is  supposed  to  be  his  version  which  was  pub- 
lished by  Junius  and  Marshall  from  the  Codex 


70  OF  VERSIONS. 

Aro-enteus,  Dordrecht,  1665,  Amsterdam,  1684, 
by  Stiernhielm,  Holmise,  1671,  and  lastly,  from 
a  copy  of  E.  Benzelius,  by  E,  Lye,  Oxford, 
1750.  La  Croze,  Thes.  Epist.  iii.  78,  con- 
cludes from  the  place  where  the  Codex  Ar- 
genteus  was  found,  the  monastery  of  Werden 
in  Westphalia,  and  from  the  form  of  the  cha- 
racter, that  the  version  is  not  Gothic  but 
Frankish.  But  the  Goths  were  in  that  coun- 
try, of  whom  were  the  Sunila  and  Fretela 
mentioned  by  Jerome,  whom  they  consulted 
respecting  the  discrepancies  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  texts.  Whichever  it  may  be,  it  con- 
tains readings  which  could  not  have  been  de- 
rived but  from  a  Greek  text,  as  has  been  al- 
lowed, after  the  demonstration  of  Bengel, 
App.  Crit.  408,  even  by  Wetstein,  i.  114. 
This  appears  more  natural  to  a  Gothic  than  to 
a  Frankish  version.  See  Hires,  Ulphilas  Illus- 
tratus.y  Another  portion  of  this  version  was 
discovered  in  the  library  of  Wolfenbiittel,  and 
published  in  1762  by  the  learned  Knittel. 


J  See  also  Comm.  de  lingiia  Codicis  Argentei,  Upsal,  1754. 
[The  Dordieclit  edition  IGGo,  contains  the  (Jothic  edited  by 
Junius,  and  the  Anglo-Saxon  by  IMarshall.  Sternhielm's 
contains  the  (iothic,  Suio-(iothic,  and  Islandic  For  proofs 
that  the  language  of  the  Codex  Argenteus  and  Carolinus 
or  Wolfenbiittel,  is   not   Frankish  but  M(jeso-Gothic,    see 


OF  VERSIONS.  71 

Marsh's  Michaelis,  II.  137,  seq.  and  for  a  description  and 
specimen  of  the  Cod.  Arg.,  see  Home's  Introd.  II.  90.] 


XI.  It  is  the  general  opinio r./  founded  on 
the  testimony  of  Augustine  (Doct.  Christ,  ii. 
11,  14),  that  there  were  many  Latin  versions 
in  the  earliest  ages  of  the  church.  This  tes- 
timony has,  through  an  absurd  partiality  for 
the  Latin  Vulgate,  been  interpreted  by  Sa- 
baiier  (in  Prsef.  Gener.  Bibl.  Vers.  Ital.),  and 
Blanchini  (in  Proleg.  Evang.  i.  81),  as  refer- 
ring to  the  multitude  of  copies,  and  by  Gar^ 
hellus  to  the  scholiasts  and  interpreters,  in  di- 
rect opposition  to  the  express  words  of  Au- 
gustine, the  perspicuity  of  which  will  admit  of 
no  such  interpretations.  And  since,  at  the 
same  period,  Greek  versions  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament were  made  at  different  places,  it  seems 
probable  that  the  same  woukl  be  done  from 
the  Greek  New  Testament  into  Latin ;  espe- 
cially when  we  consider  the  greater  facility  of 
the  task  in  the  inferior  size  of  the  work  to  be 
translated.  Finally,  the  differences  among  the 
old  copies  are  such  as  to  prove  an  original  di- 
versity of  versions. 


''■  ^QQ  also  Jerome's  Prolei^.  in  Evangel.    Hug's  Introd.  i. 
380,  [and  .Marsh's  Michaelis,  II.  11)8.] 


72  OF  VERSIONS. 

XII.  Of  all  these,  that  version  was  the 
most  approved  and  in  most  ordinary  use,  which 
Jerome  calls  the  common  or  Vulgate,  shewing 
by  the  very  epithets  that  there  existed  others. 
This  was  afterwards  called  the  Vetiis  Itala  or 
old  version,  when  it  had  been  renewed  by  his 
corrections.^ 

=*  [The  reader  will  of  course  not  confound  this  with  the 
version  now  called  Vulgate,  of  which  mention  will  be  made 
hereafter.  Among  Biblical  critics,  it  now  generally  goes  by 
the  name  of  the  Vetus-Itala,  or  Ante-Hieronymian  ver- 
sion.] 

XIII.  We  may  grant  that  this  version  was 
made  in  Italy,  although  that  conclusion  is  by 
no  means  necessary,  as  the  Latin  language 
was  vernacular  in  many  other  parts  of  Europe, 
and  in  Africa  also.  That  it  was  called  Itala, 
which  is  commonly  believed  on  the  authority 
of  Augustine,  De  Doct.  Christ,  ii.  15,  is 
doubted  by  Bentley,  who  thinks  that  for,  in 
ipsis  autem  inter pretationibus  Itala  ccateris  prce- 
feratur  :  nam  est  verhorum  tenacior^  cum  perspi- 
cuitate  sententicB  ;  we  ought  to  read,  Ilia  cceteris 
pra'feratur  qucc  est,  &c.  in  which  correction  he 
is  followed  by  Casley  (Catal.  Bibl.  Cotton.) 
and  by  the  learned  Venema.  Bentley's  sug- 
gestion in  this  matter  is  suj)p{)rted   by  many 


OF  VERSIONS.  73 

considerations.  First,  by  the  form  and  con- 
text of  the  sentence;  for  Augustine  is  here 
giving  a  general  rule  respecting  versions,  and 
afterwards  treats  of  the  Latin  versions  sepa- 
rately and  by  name.  Secondly,  Augustine  was 
quite  ignorant  of  Greek,  or  at  any  rate  so 
ignorant  as  to  be  incapable,  without  great  te- 
merity, of  estimating  the  merits  of  a  version. 
Lastly,  the  manuscripts  of  Augustine  vary 
much  in  this  w^ord,  as  has  been  shewn  by 
Casley.  Sabatier,  however,  takes  the  oppo- 
site side,  in  Proleg.  Bibl.  Vet.  Ital.  to  whom 
may  be  added  Mosheim  de  rebus  Christ,  ante 
Const.  Mag.  p.  2*24,  seq.,  who  however  fluc- 
tuates in  his  opinion.** 

^  It  appears  highly  probable,  that  this  vei'sion  was  made 
about  the  end  of  the  second  century.  1.  Because  the  Latin 
church  could  scarcely  have  done  without  a  version.  2.  Be- 
cause it  follows  a  context  venerable  through  antiquity.  3. 
Because  the  Latin  Fathers  of  the  third  century  agree  with 
it  in  their  quotations.  See  Fragmenta  Versionis  Latinae 
antehieronymianse,  in  Paulus"  Repert.  Lit.  Or.  et  Orient, 
and  Bibl.  nov.  part  IIL  p.  115,  seq.  [With  respect  to  the 
testimony  of  Augustine,  and  Bentley's  emendation  of  it, 
though  the  change  of  Itala  into  Ilia  is  ingenious,  that  of 
nam  into  qucs^  which  becomes  necessary,  is  quite  arbitrary. 
Potter  suggests  that  Itala  is  a  mistake  for  usitata,  and 
that  the  passage  in  the  ancient  manuscripts  stood  as  fol- 
lows, IMPSISAUTEMINTERPRETATIONIBUSUSl- 
TATAPRAEFERATUR  ;  that  a  transcriber  after  having 


74  OF  VERSIONS. 

copied  interpretationibus,  took  the  first  syllable  of  usitata 
for  the  last  syllable  of  the  word  he  had  just  written,  and  of 
course  read  the  next  word  ITATA,  which  he  concluded  to 
be  an  erratum  for  ITALA,  and  in  this  manner  produced 
our  present  spurious  reading.  See  Marsh's  Michaelis,  II. 
C23.] 

XIV.  Wliatev^er  may  have  been  its  origin, 
attempts  have,  for  a  long  time,  been  made  to- 
wards its  restoration,  first  hy  Flainmuff:  XoMli/(.% 
with  the  assistance  of  other  learned  men,  especi- 
ally v^.  Ar/ellius,  who  attempted  to  correct  it  from 
the  writings  of  the  Ante-Hieronymian  Fathers, 
Rome,  1588.  Next  by  MarciancBiis,  who  first 
used  manuscripts  of  a  date  prior  to  Jerome's 
version;  and  more  recently  by  P.  Sabatler, 
in  his  Bibliis  veteris  Versionis  Italica^,  Rheims, 
1743,  and  Blanching  who  published  the  Latin 
Evangeliaries  from  ancient  manuscripts  in 
1749,  not  to  mention  others  of  less  note,  whom 
Sabatier  reviews  in  his  Proleg.  §  IGG.*^ 

"  [The  Roman  edition  by  Nohilius  contains  only  the  Old 
Testament.  The  New  was  added  by  Morinvs  in  the  Paris 
edition  1C28.  MarciancBiis,  (J.  ]\Iartianay,)  published  the 
Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  Paris  IG90,  and  the  Kpisile  of  James. 
Hearne  published  the  Acts  from  the  Codex  Laudianus,  Ox- 
ford 1715.  Semler  has  given  the  old  Latin  version,  from 
the  Codex  Cantab,  at  the  end  of  his  Paraphrasis  Lvang. 
Johann.  Halle  1771-  A  fragment  of  St.  Mark's  Gospel  was 
published   by  Dobrowsky^  at  Prague   1778,  from  a  manu- 


OF  VERSIONS.  75 

script  found  there  :  and  fragments  of  Mark  and  Luke,  from 
a  manuscript  in  the  Imperial  Library  at  Vienna,  were  pub- 
lished by  Alter  in  Paulus^  Neues  Repertorium,  &c.  P.  III. 
124,] 

XV.  The  labours  of  these  editors,  though 
deserving  the  gratitude  of  scholars,  and  not 
without  use  to  those  who  know  how  to  use 
them  aright,  have  not  accomplished,  and  could 
not  accomplish  that  which  they  wished  and  in- 
tended. All  the  specious  boasts  that  have  been 
made  of  Ante-Hieronymian  manuscripts  do 
not  render  it  probable  that  this  version  can  be 
restored;  nor  do  I  believe  Fabricius,  who  as- 
serts in  the  Bibl.  Grsec.  iv.  p.  198,  that  it  can 
be  restored  from  the  manuscripts  of  Beza,  and 
the  Regius  Secunchis^  which  is  in  fact  the  Cla- 
romontanus  of  Beza. 

XVI.  For  the  writings  of  the  Latin  fathers, 
who  lived  before  Jerome,  have  in  many  places 
been  corrected,  both  by  copyists  and  editors, 
into  conformity  with  Jerome's  version,  as  has 
been  shewn  by  the  Benedictine  editors  in  the 
cases  of  Ambrose  and  Augustine;  and  by  others 
in  the  case  of  other  fathers.  Besides,  they 
quoted  from  different  versions,  or  from  discre- 
pant copies  of  the  same  version  ;  while  those 
who  were  familiar  with  Greek,  translated  for 
themselves,     without     supposing    themselves 


76  OF  VERSIONS. 

bound  in  all  cases  to  follow  the  Vulgate. 
Finally,  the  manuscripts  containing  a  version 
substantially  different  from  that  of  Jerome, 
vary  so  widely  from  one  another,  that  they  can 
by  no  process  be  reduced  into  harmony/  And 
this  is  the  less  to  be  wondered  at,  since  we 
know  that  in  the  time  of  Damasus  and  Je- 
rome perfectly  coinciding  copies  could  not  be 
found.  Therefore  Jerome  well  observes  in 
his  preface  to  the  Gospels  :  "  if  the  Latin 
translator  is  to  be  followed  in  preference  to 
the  Greek  text,  I  would  ask,  which  of  them  is 
to  be  followed  ?" 

'^  Because  the  Latin  text  was  generally  altered  into  con- 
formity with  the  later  Greek  copies,  as  appears  particularly 
in  the  case  of  the  Codex  Brixiensis. 

XVII.  I  would  not  directly  deny,  although 
I  cannot  fully  assent  to,  the  opinion  of  Mill, 
(Proleg.  n.  313,)  who  concludes  from  the  di- 
versity of  style,  that  the  old  Italian  version 
must  have  had  different  authors,  meaning  by 
diversity  of  style,  that  the  same  Greek  words 
are  not  always  expressed  by  the  same  Latin 
ones.  It  is  clear  that  the  author  was  too  tena- 
cious of  a  literal  adherence  to  his  original, 
having  preserved  the  genders,  cases,  numbers, 
and  tenses  of  the  Greek,  in  opposition   to  the 


OF  VERSIONS.  77 

rules  of  Latin  grammar,  as  Acpnla  had  done 
in  his  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Whence  it  is  clear  that  the  translator  was  im- 
perfectly acquainted  with  Greek,  or  rather 
with  Latin  ;  or  what  is  more  probable,  that  he 
was  actuated  by  a  silly  and  judaical  supersti- 
tion, and  consequently  that  he  was  a  convert 
from  Judaism ;  for  who,  in  that  age,  can  we 
suppose  to  have  been  affected  by  such  a  su- 
perstition but  a  Jew.  Sometimes,  however,  at 
least  in  single  words,  its  Latinity  is  of  a  better 
quality ;  and  in  this  also  it  resembles  the  Greek 
version  of  the  Old  Testament.® 

^  [For  instances  of  the  barbarisms  of  this  version,  see 
Marsh's  Michaehs,  II.  114.  It  is  also  highly  probable,  in- 
dependent of  any  internal  evidence,  that  the  first  translators 
of  the  N.  T.  into  Latin,  were  Jews;  as  dui'ing  the  first 
century,  almost  all  the  Chi-istian  teachers  were  of  that  na- 
tion. Bishop  Marsh  (Note  p.  626,)  is  of  opinion,  that 
Jews  residing  in  Europe  spoke  no  language  but  Greek.  He 
could  not  surely  mean  to  deny  that  those  who  were  domici- 
liated at  Rome,  had  at  least  some  knowledge  of  Latin  :  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  seems  improbable  that  those  of  easy 
circumstances  and  intelligent  minds,  would  remain  totally 
ignorant  of  the  original  language  of  Scripture.  Yet  it  is 
certainly  improbable,  that  a  Roman  Jew  would  be  so  fami- 
liar with  Hebrew  or  Syriac  idioms,  as  strongly  to  affect  his 
Latin  style.] 

XVin.   When    the   copies   of  this  version 


78  OF  VERSIONS. 

had  gradually  become  corrupted,  and  perhaps 
its  barbarism  become  ridiculous;  and  thus  it 
was  to  be  feared,  that  the  contempt  would  ex- 
tend, as  often  happens,  from  the  style  to  the 
truths  conveyed  by  it ;  Jerome,  at  the  sugges- 
tion of  Damasus,  Bishop  of  Rome,  undertook 
its  correction.  His  object  was  not  to  make  a 
new  version  from  the  Greek,  but,  in  the  first 
place,  to  correct  the  solecisms  of  the  old  ver- 
sion ;  and,  in  the  next  place,  by  collating  the 
Greek  manuscripts  in  the  Csesarean  Library, 
to  alter  those  passages  where  the  sense  had 
been  altogether  misunderstood.  Everything 
else  he  left  as  it  was,  in  order  not  to  offend 
the  habits  and  the  prejudices  of  those  who  had 
grown  up  in  the  use  of  the  ohi  version.  Hence 
it  arises,  that  the  commentaries  of  Jerome 
sometimes  differ  from  his  version  ;  nor  is  his 
practice  even  in  it  perfectly  consistent.  All  this 
caution,  however,  was  insufficient  to  secure 
him  from  blame,  and  even  Augustine  disap- 
proves of  the  correction  of  the  vicious  Latinity  ; 
nor  were  copies  of  his  emended  version  gene- 
rally received  by  the  church  before  the  eighth 
century. '^ 

'Ami  tliosiu'opies  which  were  received,  were  generally  writ- 
ten uith  the  old  version  in  a  parallel  column.  Hence  origi- 
n.tied  in  a  later  age  a  mixed  version.     See  ling,  I.  MCI),  [and 


OF  VERSIONS.  79 

Marsh's  Michaelis,  II.  125.  A  celebrated  MS.  of  this  mixed 
version,  written  in  870,  in  golden  letters,  is  preserved  in  the 
library  of  St.  Emeram  in  Ratisbon.] 

XIX.  Martianai/,  in  his  Hieronymi  Bihlio- 
tJieca  divina,  and  Sahatier  in  his  Bihlia  Vet. 
Vers.  Itol.  have  professed  to  print  this  correct- 
ed version.  Little  reliance,  however,  can  be 
placed  upon  the  purity  of  their  text.  For 
Jerome's  recension  was  soon  altered  in  many 
places,  both  by  copyists  and  correctors,  some- 
times from  the  more  ancient  version,  some- 
times from  the  quotations  of  the  Fathers,  and 
sometimes  at  their  own  discretion ;  and  thus  it 
became  so  corrupted  and  interpolated,  as  to 
render  vain  all  hopes  of  restoring  it  to  its  ori- 
ginal state.  And  the  version  of  Jerome  in  this 
its  altered  state,  is  that  which  we  now  call  the 
Vulgate.  The  best  editions  of  this,  corrected 
from  the  most  ancient  manuscripts,  are  those 
of  7^.  Stephen,  especially  his  editions  of  1540, 
1545,  and  1546,  that  of  Henten,  1547,  and  that 
of  the  Lou  vain  doctors,  1557,  1573,  among 
whom  Lucas  Brugensis  was  the  most  active. 
The  Sixtine  edition,  pnhllshed  at  Rome,  1590, 
must  also  be  noticed,  which  was  quickly  fol- 
lowed in  1502,  by  the  Clementine,  in  many  places 
differing  vcum  tli^e  Sixtine.  The  Clementine 
recension  has  been  followed  by  most  succeed- 


80  OF  VERSIONS. 

iiig-  editors,  and  it  is  this  which  now  bears  the 
name  of  Vulgate.  For  the  first  editions,  as 
those  of  Scheffei^  Jenson,  and  others  previous 
to  Stephen,  are  valuable  rather  for  their  rarity, 
than  for  any  critical  use,  being  formed  from 
such  copies  as  came  to  hand,  without  selection 
or  critical  diligence.  They  are  not,  however, 
entirely  to  be  neglected ;  for  though  they  may 
have  been  prepared  from  single  recent  copies, 
still  they  may  contain  some  readings  of  critical 
value.^ 

s  Especially  -when  their  readings  are  supported  by  more 
ancient  authorities.  For  the  differences  between  the  Cle- 
mentine and  Sixtlne  recensions,  see  James''  Bellum  Papale 
sive  Concordia  discors  Sixti  v.  et  Clementis  viii.  Lond. 
16*00.  [And  in  his  treatise,  on  the  Corruption  of  Scripture, 
&c.  1611.  Ernesti's  account  of  the  earlier  editions  of  the 
Vulgate  is  not  correct.  Henten's  edition  of  1547,  was  pre- 
pared under  the  inspection  of  the  Louvain  divines,  wJio 
again,  not  in  1557,  but  in  1573,  prepared  a  more  accurate 
edition,  by  the  command  of  the  Council  of  Trent.] 

XX.  Since,  however,  this  version  does  not 
in  all  cases  express  the  sense  of  the  original 
with  sufficient  perspicuity  and  fidelity,  many 
scholars  have  attempted  new  versions,  ever 
since  the  restoration  of  the  study  of  the  Greek 
text.  We  may  mention  those  of  Erasmus, 
Pagninij  a   better  translator  of  the  Old  than 


OF  VERSIONS.  81 

of  the  New  Testament,  Castellio,  Beza,  whose 
versions  Boyse  has  compared  with  the  old 
Latin,  and  shewn  that  they  have  often  departed 
from  it  without  sufficient  cause.  Boyse's  zeal, 
however,  has  carried  him  too  far  in  some  of 
his  remarks.  Of  other  versions,  and  especially 
those  into  the  vernacular  tongues,  it  is  un- 
necessary here  to  treat. 

XXI.  Versions  have  two  uses,  the  one  her- 
meneutical^  the  other  critical.  Both  the  ancient 
and  modern  versions  possess  that  common  her- 
meneutical  use,  w^hich  we  may  call  historical : 
that  is  to  say,  we  learn  from  them  what  each 
translator  understood  by  the  words  of  the  ori- 
ginal ;  and  are  thus  often  led  to  the  true  sense 
of  the  passage. 

XXII.  Those  ancient  versions,  however, 
which  were  made  directly  from  the  Greek,  and 
by  men  skilled  in  the  peculiar  idiom  of  the 
New  Testament,  may  have  also  a  proper  and 
dogmatic  hermeneutical  use ;  that  is  to  say,  we 
may  learn  from  them  the  usus  loquendi,  in 
cases  where  it  could  not  be  discovered  by  other 


^  The  literal  exactness  of  the  Latin  version,  has  intro- 
duced  doctrinal  errors  into  theology.     Thus  in  2  Cor.  viii. 
19,  T^o^vfAia  is  rendered  by  the  Vulgate,  destinata  voluntas^ 
and  this  Aquinas  uses  to  support  the  doctrine  of  predestina- 
G 


82  OF  VERSIONS. 

tion.  For  a  still  stronger  example,  see  Ephes.  v.  32,  where 
fAvtrrvi^iov  is  rendered  in  the  Vulgate  by  sacramentum,  [and 
thus  marriage  is  made  one  of  the  seven  sacraments.  These, 
however,  are  certainly  not  instances  of  the  proper  herme- 
neutical  use  of  versions  :  and  probably  the  Old  Syriac  is  the 
only  version,  for  which  any  such  use  can  fairly  be  claimed.] 

XXIII.  Versions  fail  of  attaining  either  of 
these  hermeneutical  uses,  in  proportion  as  they 
are  too  tenacious  of  verbal  accuracy,  and  by 
an  unnecessary  adherence  to  the  Greek  idiom, 
offend  against  purity  and  perspicuity.  In  this 
way  even  learned  theologians  and  interpreters 
have  been  led  into  error.  If  the  reader  wishes 
for  examples  of  this  species  of  translation  from 
the  old  Latin,  he  may  consult  Erasmus'  Pre- 
face to  the  New  Testament,  1522,  c.  6,  b.  sq. 

XXIV.  Before  we  can  hope  to  derive  this 
use  from  a  version,  we  must  determine,  as  was 
before  observed,  that  it  was  really  made  from 
the  Greek  :  and,  in  the  next  place,  we  must  be 

I  careful  with  respect  to  the  Oriental  versions, 
not  to  trust  to  the  Latin  interpretations  of 
them,  which  are  generally  faulty  and  obscure.' 
If  our  knowledge  of  the  language  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  enable  us  to  use  the  version  itself,  it 
will  be  better  to  forego  it  altogether. 

'  Mill  has  fallen  into  this  error,  see  Bodii  Pseiulocritica 
Millio-Bengeliana.     Halle  17G7,  1769.     With  equal  care- 


OF  VERSIONS.  80 

^.essness  Wetstein  refers  to  the  testimony  of  the  Syriac  ver- 

%  "r 
-sion,  at  Acts  xi.  20,  in  which  passage   ^jOO,  may  mean 

the  Hellenists,  see  Acts  vi.  1. :  and  at  Philipp.  ii.  30,  where 

OLa£XJ    V\l^^  '  (T)^  gives  the  sense  of   the  reading   ^a^a. 

7 
Covkiva-rJi/xivos.  In  a  similar  way,  the  Syriac  version  in  many 
texts,  follows  very  different  readings  from  those  which 
are  assigned  to  it  in  the  best  critical  editions.  [This,  how- 
ever, relates  to  the  critical  use  of  versions,  which  is  treated 
of  more  fully  in  the  following  sections.  ] 

XXV.  Having  attended  to  these  two  points, 
we  must  next  ascertain  the  value  of  the  ver- 
sion, in  order  to  determine  whether  it  will  re- 
pay the  labour  of  reading  and  consultation. 
This  we  may  do  by  comparing  several  passages, 
whose  sense  is  not  easy,  but  which  we  have 
satisfactorily  determined.  R.  Simon  has  given 
examples  of  this  sort  of  comparison  from  the 
Syriac  version,  in  his  Hist.  Crit.  ii.  c.  15.  If 
the  result  of  such  an  examination  be  favour- 
able, we  may  then  proceed  to  use  the  version 
with  greater  hope  and  confidence. 

XXVI.  In  the  use  of  versions  we  must 
avoid  the  common  error  of  those  who  have  un- 
dertaken to  illustrate  the  New  Testament  bv 
the  versions  of  the  Oriental  churches.  For 
all,  and  among  them  L.  de  Dieu,  in  his  Crit. 
Sac,  spend  their  labour  very  idly  in  comparing 
those  words  which  can  be  sufficiently  explained 


84  OF  VERSIONS. 

from  the  Greek  or  Hebrew.'^  All  that  they 
can  possibly  effect  in  this  way,  is  to  show  that 
such  words  have  been  rightly  understood  by 
the  writer  of  the  version;  and  this  may  tend 
to  raise  the  character  of  the  version,  or  to  il- 
lustrate the  language  in  which  it  is  written  : 
but  can  never  tend  to  advance  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Scriptures. 

^  For  example,  he  attempts  to  illustrate  (in  IMatt.  i.  19,) 
the  Greek  ^a.^a^nyfjcoc.riira.t  from  the  Syriac  ^sD\Si  ^^  reveal, 
which  again  has  a  disgraceful  sense. 

XXVII.  Finally,  the  student  ought  to  con- 
sult such  versions,  only  when  he  meets  with 
passages  which  he  is  unable  to  explain  from 
the  usages  of  the  Greek  or  Hebrew  languages. 
He  must  next  examine  whether  the  passage 
has  been  rendered  etymologically,  and  word 
for  word,  a  species  of  translation  which  can 
be  of  no  service ;    or  whether,    on   the    con- 
trary,  it  has  been  translated  into  the  idiom  of 
the  language  in  which  the  version  is,  and  in 
a   style  explicable  by  the   known   usages   of 
that  language.     If  the  latter  be  the  case,  then 
we  may  hope,  if  in  other  respects  the  render- 
ing be  probable  and  consistent,  that  we  have 
found  something  that  will  be  conducive  to  the 


OF  VERSIONS.  85 

discovery  of  tlie  true  sense.  And  this  is  true, 
especially  of  the  Syriac  version,  which  is  in 
the  language  vernacular  to  the  Apostles,  or  in 
one  very  similar  to  it ;  and  it  is  highly  proba- 
ble that  modes  and  figures  of  speech  were  bor- 
rowed from  it  as  well  as  from  the  Hebrew,  and 
introduced  into  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Besides,  from  the  number  of  Syriac 
books  still  existing,  the  usages  of  that  language 
may  be  accurately  ascertained.* 


Matt.   vi.    11,     el^Tog    iTrtovfftos    is    rendered    |voa.\. 


imnnni  the  bread  of  our  necessity,  i.  e.  the  bread  that  is 
necessary  for  us. 

XXVIII.  Those  versions  alone  have  a  cri- 
tical use,  which  have  been  made  directly  from 
the  Greek ;  for  such  only  can  show  what  read- 
ings the  writers  of  them  found  in  the  manu- 
scripts from  which  they  translated.  Showing 
this,  they  may  be  useful  in  discovering  genuine 
readings,  in  confirming  those  already  disco- 
vered, and  in  detecting  the  origin  of  false  read- 
ings. Those  versions  which  have  been  made 
from  other  versions,  show  the  readings  of  these, 
and  not  of  the  original  text."" 

™  Thus  the  Persic  and  Arabic  versions  may  be  used  cri- 
tically, not  to  emend  the  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament, 


86  OF  VERSIONS. 

but  to  correct  the  Syriac  version,  from  which  they  were 
both  derived. 

XXIX.  Those    who   with    Whitbi/,    Maes- 
tricht,  and  others  very  imperfectly  acquainted 
with   criticism,  deny  that  versions  afford  va- 
rious readings,  especially  the  ancient  versions 
of  the  New  Testament,  which  are  generally 
literal,  are  opposed  to  the  universal  practice  of 
critics  on  other  books  of  antiquity,"  and  to  the 
reason  of  the  case  itself.     Besides,  they  throw 
suspicion   upon  the   Greek  text,   which   they 
pretend  to  defend  ;  for  it  is  certain  that  many 
readings   were   introduced   into   it   from   the 
Latin  version,   by  the   Complutensian  editors, 
Erasmus^  and  Beza,  many  of  which  are  still  re- 
tained :  and  finally,  they  are  refuted  by  their 
own   practice.      For   all   of  them,    especially 
Whitby^  in  defending  particular  readings,  are 
in  the  habit  of  referring  to  versions,  as  is  well 
urged  by    Bengel,    p.    427.     Glasse   properly 
acknowledges  this  use  of  versions  in  his  Phil, 
Sac.  Tr.  ii.  P,  i.  memb.  3,  and  also  Luther,  who 
not  unfrequently  follows  the  reading  of  the 
Latin  version. 

"  Wesseling  in  his  preface  to  Herodotus,  confesses  that  he 
has  gathered  many  various  readings  from  the  Latin  version 
of  L.    Valla,     The  same  holds  good  with  versions  of  th^ 


OF  VERSIONS.  87 

New  Testament.  [For  the  critical  use  of  the  Syriac  version, 
see  Marsh's  Michaelis,  II.  45,  and  for  that  of  the  old  Latin, 
p.  121.  When  the  Latin  copies  all  agree  in  a  reading,  their 
evidence  goes  far  to  prove  that  it  existed  in  various  manu- 
scripts older  than  any  now  existing.  For  the  Latin  manu- 
scripts which  go  by  the  names  of  Vercellensis,  Brixiensis, 
Veronensis,  &c.  diflFer  so  much,  that  they  may  be  considered 
as  separate  versions.] 

XXX.  But  in  this  application  of  versions, 
much  caution  is  to  be  used.  For,  in  the  first 
place,  all  those  passages  are  to  be  set  aside,  in 
which  it  is  clear  that  the  translator  has  erred, 
either  through  the  errors  of  the  manuscript 
which  he  used,  or  through  his  own  ignorance 
of  Greek  or  Hebrew,  or  through  negligence  ; 
and  those  also  in  which  he  has  inserted  his 
own  explanation  rather  than  a  fair  version  of 
the  Greek,  with  those  in  which  he  has  wTitten 
ambiguously,  or  is  such  a  way  as  that  it  can- 
not clearly  be  determined  from  his  version 
what  was  the  reading  in  the  manuscript  which 
he  used  f  all  which  exceptions  frequently  oc- 
cur in  the  Latin  version.  I  am  inclined,  how- 
ever, to  give  more  weight  to  the  Latin  version 
in  its  omissions,  especially  where  the  other 
versions  agree  with  it,  than  in  other  respects. 
For  if  the  readina:  be  still  consistent  with 
reason  and  the  context,  no  good  reason-can  be 
given  for  the  omission ;  whereas  in  other  va- 


88  OF  VERSIONS. 

nations,  ignorance,  negligence,  or  interpola- 
tion may  be  supposed.  In  the  use  of  oriental 
versions  we  must  be  careful  not  to  trust  to  tlie 
ordinary  Latin  interpretation,  by  which  confi- 
dence Mill,  with  others,  has  been  grossly  mis- 
led. Finally,  good  and  ancient  manuscripts 
ought  to  be  inspected,  and  not  merely  the 
printed  copies;  because  the  versions  them- 
selves, as  h^s  already  been  shown  of  many, 
have  been  vitiated  and  interpolated.  That 
this  has  taken  place  in  the  Latin  version,  has 
been  abundantly  shown  by  those  who  have 
undertaken  its  correction.^ 

°  For  example  in  Luke  ii.  22.  ^Vetstein  says,  that  the 
Vulgate  indicates  the  reading  eLVToZ.  But  ejus  may  with 
equal  probability  be  referred  to  the  reading  avrtjs. 

J'  To  these  cautions  we  may  add  the  following  rules.  He 
who  wishes  to  make  a  judicious  use  of  versions,  must  ob- 
serve, 1.  Whether  he  possesses  the  text  of  the  version  which 
he  is  using  critically  edited  and  emended.  2.  M'hether  he 
is  intimately  acquainted  with  the  language  of  the  version. 
3.  What  recension  the  version  follows.  4.  Let  him  be- 
ware of  mistaking  synonyms  in  the  version,  for  a  variety  in 
the  reading.  5.  Let  him  be  aware  that  readings  supported 
by  only  one  version,  carry  no  great  weight  with  them.  [It 
is  hoped,  that  the  junior  student  of  theology  will  rise  from 
the  perusal  of  this  chapter,  with  a  conviction,  that  the 
emendation  of  the  text  from  versions,  or  indeed  from  any 
other  source,  is  a  work  requiring  all  the  matured  judgment 
and  k)U)wledge  of  the  veteran  scholar  :  and  that  the  utmost 
which  he  can  liope  to  effect  at  present  by  the  most  careful 


OF  VERSIONS.  89 

attention  to  the  subject,  is  to  qualify  himself  in  some  mea- 
sure to  judge  of  the  emendations,  or  systems  of  emendation, 
which  he  finds  proposed  in  the  more  celebrated  critical  edi- 
tions of  the  New  Testament.  And  if  even  in  this  judgment 
he  finds  much  difficulty  and  obscurity,  he  may  comfort  him- 
self with  the  assurance  that  there  is  no  edition  of  the  New 
Testament,  which  does  not  substantially  contain  all  the 
facts  narrated,  and  all  the  doctrines  taught  by  the  Aposto- 
lic writers.  The  labours  of  the  critics  have  probably  been 
more  useful,  in  establishing  the  general  agreement  of  all 
the  copies,  than  in  deducing  any  important  result  from  their 
little  discrepancies.] 


90  WRITINGS  OF  THE  FATHERS, 


CHAPTER  V. 

ON  THE  WRITINGS  OF  THE  FATHERS,  AND  THEIR 
APPLICATION. 

I.  The  writings  of  the  doctors  of  the  church, 
in  its  early  ages,  form  also  a  part  of  the  appa- 
ratus necessary  to  an  interpreter.^  We  shall 
therefore  briefly  treat  of  them,  in  so  far  as  they 
are  connected  with  our  purpose,  either  as  aid- 
ing the  verification  of  the  text,  or  its  interpre- 
tation. And  in  this  we  shall  comprehend  all 
sacred  writings  which  refer  to  Scripture,  not 
commentaries  solely  or  even  principally,  since 
they  have  been  separately  considered  in  an- 
other chapter. 

1  From  the  quotations  of  the  Fathers  we  learn  varieties  of 
the  text,  more  ancient  than  those  supplied  by  the  manu- 
scripts ;  we  learn  also  the  age  and  country  of  particular 
readings,  jmd  tlie  origin  of  glosses.  [The  old  readings  are 
to  be  deduced  rather  fi-om  the  comments  and  observations 
of  the  Fathers,  than  from  their  quotations,  which  have  in 


AND   THEIR  APPLICATION.  91 

some  cases  been  altered  by  the  copyists  into  conformity 
with  the  prevailing  text,  and  in  others  appear  to  have  been 
made  memoriter  and  inaccurately  by  the  Father  himself.  See 
Marsh's  Michaelis,  II.  p.  370,  371.] 

II.  The  uses  to  which  these  writings  may 
be  applied  are  of  two  kinds,  the  one  critical^ 
the  other  hermeneuticah  But  in  order  to  give 
accurate  precepts  for  each  of  these,  it  seems 
necessary,  in  the  first  place,  to  say  something 
respecting  the  text  which  was  used  by  the 
Fathers  and  of  its  history  ;  and  then  respecting 
the  nature  of  ancient  interpretation. 

III.  In  the  first  place,  since  the  historical 
books  of  the  New  Testament  were  written  by 
diff*erent  authors  in  diiferent  places,  and  the 
Epistles  were  sent  to  different  churches  through 
particular  channels,  it  is  clear  they  could  not 
be  immediately  known  to  all  the  churches  \ 
much  less  could  they  be  immediately  collected 
into  volumes  and  possessed  by  all  Christians, 
or  even  by  all  the  teachers  of  the  church.  And 
this  is  confirmed  by  ancient  custom  in  such 
matters,  and  by  the  manuscripts  which  are 
now  extant.     See  chap.  ii.  §  9.® 

^  Chrysostom,  for  example,  declares  in  his  Prol,  I.  Horn, 
on  the  Acts,  that  this  book  was  entirely  unknown  to  his 
diocese. 

*  In  the  1st  Epistle  of  Clemens  Rom.  no  book  of  the  New 


92  WRITINGS  OF  THE  FATHERS, 

Testament  is  quoted,  except  the  1st  Ep.  to  the  Corinthians, 
which  he  calls  ivayyiXtov.  Tertullian  and  Justin,  indeed 
quote  almost  all  the  books  of  the  N.  T.  with  the  exception 
of  the  Apocalypse :  but  the  embodying  of  the  several 
books  into  one  volume,  was  not  thought  of  till  the  third 
century. 

IV.  Since  the  copies  that  were  made,  were 
made  by  the  Christians  themselves,  among 
whom  there  were  few  who  had  been  regularly 
educated,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  if  they 
abounded  in  errors  of  orthography,  or  were  in 
other  respects  faulty ;  the  substantial  sense  of 
the  text  being,  however,  always  preserved, 
with  which  these  simple  and  uneducated  men 
were  contented.  Nor  had  they  among  them 
professional  grammarians  to  whom  they  might 
give  their  copies  for  correction.* 

*  Add  also,  that  on  account  of  the  contempt  and  persecu- 
tions under  which  the  church  then  suffered,  these  copies 
were  made  clandestinely.  Hence  we  may  infer  the  origin 
and  causes  of  erroneous  readings. 

V.  The  second  century  certainly  produced 
Christians  who  had  been  regularly  educated, 
as  Justin,  Pantcenus,  Clemens,  and  others ;  but 
these  were  rather  philosophers  than  gram- 
marians, and  better  qualified  to  write  books 
than   to  correct  them.     It  appears  also,  that 


AND  THEIR  APPLICATION.  93 

about  tins  time  the  several  books  of  the  New 
Testament  began  to  be  embodied,  as  IrencRus^ 
Clemens  Alex.,  and  Tertullian  quote  nearly  all 
of  them." 

"  The  first  of  these  was  ignorant  of  Hebrew  :  the  second 
was  the  instructor  of  Clemens  and  a  Stoic.  Neither  of 
them  was  quahfied  to  correct  the  text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  reader  may  note  how  the  representations  of 
Justin  in  his  dialogue  with  Trypho,  respecting  the  Magi 
coming  from  Damascus  to  Bethlehem,  diflfer  from  the  ac- 
count given  by  St.  INlatthew. 

VI.  Origen,  in  the  third  century,  was  the 
first  who  undertook,  from  a  comparison  of  nu- 
merous ancient  manuscripts,  to  make  a  selec- 
tion of  the  best  readings,  and  thus  to  form  a 
pure  and  uncorrupted  text.  There  can  be  lit- 
tle doubt,  from  the  authority  which  his  recen- 
sion held,  both  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  church, 
that  this  learned  father  applied  his  knowledge 
of  criticism,  and  his  familiarity  with  the  old 
copies,  to  a  useful  and  successful  result.  It  has 
been  argued,  though  without  sufficient  proof, 
that  he  sometimes  introduced  conjectural  emen- 
dations into  the  text.^  For  these  emendations, 
which  are  proposed  in  his  Commentaries,  were 
not  inserted  in  the  text.  See  my  Disp.  de 
Origene  interp.  SS.  librorum  grammaticse  aiic- 
tore,  §  16,  17,  20. 


94  WRITINGS  OF  THE  FATHERS, 

^  Origen,  however,  cannot  be  completely  acquitted  of  an 
immoderate  fondness  for  emendation.  See,  for  example, 
Matt.  viii.  28,  where  he  is  said  to  have  substituted  Ta^yiffyivuv 
for  ra5«^-/5v&?v ;  and  John  i.  28.  B>j^a?a^a  for  Bn^avia, 
in  both  cases  erroneously.  See  Huetii  Origeniana  iii.  ch. 
2.  [Tipyia-'/ivav  not  Ta^ysffyivuv  is  the  conjecture  of  Origen. 
For  a  full  consideration  of  this  reading,  see  Marsh's  Mi- 
chaelis,  II.  397)  seq.,  and  for  his  attempted  emendation  of 
John  i.  28,  see  the  same,  p.  399.  In  this  last  case,  however, 
Origen  seems  to  have  had  a  more  probable  ground  of  con- 
jecture :  for  there  was  a  Bethany  near  Jerusalem,  and  no 
other  that  we  read  of  elsewhere.  The  addition  beyond 
Jordan  would  mark  a  diversity  of  places  with  the  same 
name,  if  those  places  were  cities  or  large  towns,  but  not  if 
the  place  intended  were  a  village.  Thus  we  say  Neivcastle 
on  Tyne,  as  distinguished  from  Newcastle  under  Line  ;  but 
when  we  say  Triimpington  near  Cambridge,  we  do  not  im- 
ply the  existence  of  any  other  place  with  the  same  name. 
Had  there  been  a  city  called  Bethany  beyond  Jordan,  it 
seems  scarcely  probable  that  it  should  have  been  so  utterly 
annihilated  and  forgotten,  as  to  have  escaped  the  researches 
of  so  intelligent  a  traveller  as  Origen.  For  a  comparison 
of  the  readings  of  Origen  with  those  of  Codex  L.  see 
Griesbach's  Symb.  Crit.  T.  I.  p.  Ixxvii.  seq.  ErnestVs 
tract  de  Origene  Interp.  &c.  has  been  translated  by  Mr.  R. 
B.  Patton,  and  printed  in  Hodge's  Biblical  Repertory,  vol. 
iii.  New  York,  1827.] 

VII.  Copies  of  Origen's  recension  being 
deposited  in  the  celebrated  Csesarean  Library, 
became  the  exemplar  by  which  other  copies 
were  tried  and  corrected,  (see  ch.  i.  §  17,)  and 
many  transcripts  were  made  from  them  in  the 
time  of  EuseUusy  and  afterwards,  (see  ch.  ii.  § 


AND  THEIR  APPLICATION.  95 

16.)  Almost  all  the  more  learned  Fathers,  and 
celebrated  interpreters  of  the  Greek  Church, 
followed  this  text,  and  among  the  Latins,  Je- 
rome ;  so  that  Origen  may  justly  be  reckoned 
the  parent  of  the  pure  Oriental  Greek  text. 
Nor  is  it  clearly  ascertained,  that  any  one  after 
him  undertook  and  accomplished  the  labour  of 
a  like  recension.  For  the  manuscripts  of  Pie- 
rius  and  Pamj^hihis^  so  highly  praised  by  the 
ancients,  were,  without  doubt,  copies  of  Origen's 
recension,  carefully  written  out  by  those  per- 
sons. This  is  proved  with  respect  to  Pam- 
pliilus,  by  Euthalius^  in  the  subscription  to 
Epp.  Cathol.,  p.  513. 

VIII.  In  the  same  century,  but  towards  the 
end  of  it,  and  subsequent  to  Orirjen^  we  are 
informed  by  Jerome  (Prsef  in  iv.  Evang.)  that 
Lucian  of  Antioch,  and  Hesychius,  an  Egyptian 
bishop,  made  a  new  recension  of  the  text,  and 
laboured  also  on  the  Septuagint  version  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Jerome,  however,  thought 
very  meanly  of  their  copies ;  "  I  omit,"  says 
he,  "  those  copies  named  after  Lucian  and 
Hesychius,  which  the  contentious  perversity  of 
some  men  is  in  the  habit  of  referring  to ;  nor 
were  they  successful  in  their  emendations  of 
the  New  Testament."  As,  however,  the  Hesy- 
chian  text  of  the    Septuagint  was   generally 


96  WRITINGS  OF  THE  FATHERS, 

received  by  the  Alexandrines,  and  in  Egypt, 
so  also  his  text  of  the  New  Testament  is 
believed  to  have  had  considerable  currency. 
Hence,  it  is  called  by  some  the  Alexandrine 
text :  and  TVetstein,  i.  69,  observes,  that  the 
glosses  of  Hesy chilis,  which  relate  to  the  New 
Testament,  agree  with  its  readings.  The  same 
may  have  been  the  case  with  Lucian's  text,  in 
the  countries  where  his  emended  text  of  the 
Septuagint  was  received,  as  in  Syria.  And 
the  prevalent  dislike  to  Origen,  might  have 
a  further  efficacy  in  this  matter. ^ 

y  See  a  learned  dissertation  on  this  subject  in  Hug's  In- 
troduction, I.  176,  198. 

IX.  We  must  not,  however,  suppose  that 
either  countries  or  individuals,  restricted  them- 
selves to  particular  copies  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, any  more  than  they  had  done  in  the 
case  of  the  Old  Testament.  We  have  seen 
that  Euthalius,  an  Egyptian,  visited  Ccesarea, 
in  order  to  correct  his  copy  by  the  text  of 
Origen;  and  afterwards  the  Syrian  author  of 
the  new  version,  collected  copies  of  Origen's 
recension.  And  thus  the  readings  of  various 
recensions  might  be  mingled  together,  as  it  is 
evident  was  done  in  the  case  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament.    In  all  ages  then,  even  after  the  la- 


AND  THEIR  APPLICATION.  97 

boors  of  Orlgen,  the  existence  of  various  read- 
ings is  mentioned  by  many,  as  Chrysostom^ 
Theophylact,  CEcumenius,  and  others. 

X.  These  manuscripts,  however,  and  those 
derived  from  them,  with  greater  or  less  degrees 
of   accuracy,    still   substantially   retained    the 
verity  of  the  original  Greek.     But  a  new  class 
of  manuscripts  afterwards  arose,  of  which,  as 
we  have  before  observed,  many  very  ancient 
copies  still  exist,  in  which  the  Greek  text  was 
in   many  places  altered  or   interpolated   into 
conformity  with  the   Latin  version.     Mill  in 
his  Proleg.  n.  378,  and   JVetstein,  i.  79,^  have 
repeated  the  well  known  remark  of  Epipkanius 
and  TertuUian,  that  this  practice  was  first  in- 
troduced with  a  bad  design  by  Marcion.     But 
the  orthodox  themselves  soon  began  to  follow 
the  same  system,  either  through  ignorance,  or 
a  servile  submission  to  the  Romans,^  (see  chap, 
ii.  §  J  6),   or  from  other  causes.     For  that  the 
Romans  may  have   thought   this   submission 
reasonable,  is  very  possible ;  nor  will  it  appear 
extraordinary  to  those  who  judge  of  human 
nature  by  the  experience  of  facts.     The  ortho- 
dox Greeks,  who  were  ignorant  of  Hebrew, 
were  fully  persuaded  that  the  Greek  version  of 
the  Old  Testament,  which  they  had  received 
from   their  Fathers,  was  more  pure  than  the 

H 


98  WRITINGS  OF  THE  FATHERS, 

Hebrew  text :  and  the  Latins  considered  it  a 
heavy  crime  in  Jerome^  that  he  had  dared  to 
correct  the  Latin  version  of  the  Old  Testament 
by  the  Hebrew,  rendering  it  thereby  very 
different  from  their  copies  which  adhered  close- 
ly to  the  Greek.  Hilary^  a  Roman  deacon,  or 
whoever  was  the  author  of  the  Commentary 
on  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  usually  published 
with  the  works  of  Ambrose^  sometimes,  as  at 
Rom.  V.  14,  directly  requires  that  the  Greek 
should  be  corrected  by  the  Latin.  Jerome^ 
however,  the  most  learned  of  the  Latins,  and 
Augustine^  are  of  another  and  sounder  opinion. 
See  the  Prsef.  ad  iv.  Evang.  of  the  former, 
and  Doct.  Christ,  ii.  13,  and  De  Pecc.  mere, 
et  remiss,  i.  11,  of  the  latter.  They  hold  that 
the  Latin  copies  ought  to  be  corrected  in  con- 
formity with  the  Greek  verity. 


'  See  Loeffier's  Dissertation,  Marcionem  Pauli  epistolas 
et  Ijucas  evangelium  adulterasse  dubitatur.     Utrecht  17^8. 

^  [For  arguments  against  the  existence  of  this  servile  sub- 
mission, or  Foedus  cum  Latinis  as  it  is  usually  called,  see 
Marsh's  Michaelis,  II.  IC.'J,  seq.,  and  Griesbach's  Symb. 
Crit.  I.  110.  seq.] 

XL  It  is  clear,  then,  that  those  copies  which 
we  call  purely  Greek,  are  to  be  preferred  to 
those  which   follow   the   Latin   version,   from 


AND  THEIR  APPLICATION.  99 

many  arguments,  and  especially  from  this,  that 
it  is  as  clear  as  the  sun,  that  many  of  the  read- 
ings in  which  the  Latin  differs  from  the  Greek, 
arose  partly  from  ignorance  of  the  old  Greek 
character,  and  of  the  contractions  usual  in  the 
old  manuscripts,  partly  from  ignorance  of  the 
language,  and  partly  from  the  carelessness  by 
which  words  or  clauses  were  omitted.  Nor  is 
the  force  of  this  argument  weakened  by  any 
Latin  manuscript,  however  ancient,  as  the  His- 
palensis  in  Gothic  characters,  which  Mariana 
long  ago  boasted  of,  in  his  Prsef.  Schol.  V.  et 
N.  T.,  and  which  Blaiicliini  extols,  as  contain- 
ing the  genuine  version  of  Jerome.^  For,  like 
other  ancient  copies,  it  contains  traces  of  the 
original  purity,  and  departs  from  the  ordinary 
Latin  copies  in  many  remarkable  readings  : 
and  even  if*xlid  contain  the  version  of  Jerome 
in  its  purity,  still  it  could  not  outweigh  the 
authority  of  the  Greek  text,  for  the  reasons 
mentioned  above,  ch.  iv.  §  18.  It  is  an  old 
invention  of  the  heretics,  to  prefer  versions, 
especially  the  Latin  version,  to  the  original 
Greek ;  and  to  speak  of  the  Greek  text  as  cor- 
rupted, in  order  to  heighten  the  credit  of  the 
Latin.  Jerome,  with  great  justice,  reproves 
Helvidius  for  this  error,  and  his  arguments  are 
very  properly  approved  of  even  by  H.  ISinion, 


100  WRITINGS  OF  THE  FATHERS, 

Hist.  Crit.  ch.  vi.  The  argument,  Lowever, 
o{  Jerome,  that  the  fountain  must  necessarily 
be  purer  than  the  stream,  is  not  sufficient;  for 
it  may  properly  be  enquired,  whether  the  foun- 
tain itself  be  pure.  We  must  not,  however, 
go  so  far  as  to  hold  that  no  good  readings  are 
retained  in  the  Latin,  and  that  its  critical  au- 
thority is  absolutely  nothing.  On  this  head 
some  remarks  were  made  in  the  last  chapter  ; 
and  the  subject  will  be  resumed  in  the  next. 

*•  Jerome  asserts  that  he  sent  a  copy  of  his  version,  both  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testament,  to  a  friend  in  Batic  Spain. 
There  is  still  extant  in  the  church  of  Seville  (Hispalis,) 
a  copy  of  the  whole  New  Testament  in  Gothic  letters,  pre- 
sented to  the  church,  as  appears  from  the  subscription,  in 
991,  at  which  time  it  was  reckoned  an  ancient  copy.  It 
contains  good  readings;  for  example  in  John  vii.  3^,  it  ha&  ^ 
not  datus  ;  in  Rom.  v.  14,  it  has,  qui  pcccarunt  sicut  Adaniy 
omitting  the  negative,  and  thereby  favouring  the  doctrine 
of  Pelagius.  Augustine  blames  this  omission  :  the  strenuous 
defenders  of  this  manuscript,  ought,  therefore,  to  pay  some 
respect  to  the  opinion  of  him  whom  they  acknowledge  as  a 
Father.  [The  translator  can  make  nothing  of  the  reference 
to  John  vii.  34,  and  takes  for  granted  that  the  verse  intended 
is  39,  where  datus  occurs  in  the  Vulgate  text.  This  is  one 
instance  out  of  a  hundred,  where  he  has  had  to  correct  the 
references  of  the  notes  or  text,  and  often  like  this,  when 
neither  lexicon  nor  concordance  could  direct  him  aright.] 

XII.  Since  vestiges  of  the  pure  Greek  text 
are  supposed  to  exist  in  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers   of  the   primitive  church,    who    used 


AND  THEIR  APPLICATION.  101 

copies  containing  it;  a  good  interpreter  must 
necessarily  understand  the  method  of  properly- 
investigating  their  writings  for  the  discovery 
of  these  readings.  And  in  doing  this,  we  must 
attend  to  the  distinctions  of  age^  learning^  hooks, 
and  finally  oi  particular  passages  in  those  books. 
For  this  is  manifest,  that  greater  weight  ought 
to  be  given  to  the  Greek  Fathers  than  to  the 
Latin  ;  and  that  among  the  Latin,  those  deserve 
the  most  attention,  who  appear  to  have  under- 
stood Greek,  and  to  have  been  in  the  habit  of 
consulting  Greek  copies,  such  as  Jerome,  and 
a  few  others.*^  In  the  rest  of  the  Latins,  we 
must  rather  look  for  the  readings  of  the  Latin 
version. 

'^  Among  whom  we  may  class  Hilary  of  Poitou,  who  took 
his  citations  from  Origen.  Augustine  and  Ambrose  were 
but  indifferent  scholars. 

XIIL  First  then,  we  may  observe,  that  au- 
thorities ought  to  weigh  in  proportion  to  their 
antiquity.  And  here  we  have  reason  to  regret, 
that  so  few  monuments  of  the  twb  first  centu- 
ries remain  to  us ;  and  that  in  these  there  is 
little  which  can  safely  be  applied  to  the  pur- 
pose which  we  have  now  in  view.  For  those 
writings  which  bear  the  names  of  fathers  of  the 
first  century,  are  either  manifestly  spurious,^ 


]02  WRITINGS  OF  THE  FATHERS, 

or  SO  interpolated,  as  to  be  unworthy  of  our 
confidence  in  any  part;  or  else  the  passages  of 
the  New  Testament,  which  they  contain,  are 
quoted  carelessly,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of 
being  interpreted.  And  nearly  the  same  may 
be  said  respecting  those  of  the  second  century. 
For  the  Hypotyposes  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus, 
in  which  P/wtius,  (Cod.  109,)  informs  us  he 
had  examined  passages  both  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  have  been  almost  entirely 
lost.  In  his  other  writings,  indeed,  there  are 
passages  which  show  the  nature  of  the  copy  he 
used,  and  which  give  us  reason  to  believe  that 
it  was  partially  interpolated  from  the  Scholia. 
Justin  has  few  quotations,  and  those  only  from 
the  Gospels :  while  the  works  of  Irenceiis  exist 
only  in  Latin,  and  the  quotations  are  made 
from  the  Latin  version.®  See  Mill's  Proleg. 
n.  366. 


"*  As  the  Avri tings  of  Clemens  Romanus,  Barnabas,  and 
Ignatius,  with  the  Apostolic  Constitutions.  [But  the  reader 
will  do  well  to  examine  this  mattei-  more  particularly.  The 
first  Epistle  of  Clemens  to  the  Corinthians  is  almost  uni- 
versally acknowledged  genuine,  though  some  suppose  it  to 
have  been  partially  corrupted.  See  WotfoJi^s  Obs.  in  his 
edition  of  Clemens,  Camb.  1718.  Nor  are  the  works  of 
Ignatius  so  universally  discredited  as  Dr.  Ammon  implies. 
Seven  of  his  Epistles  are  generally  admitted  to  be  genuine. 
See  J.  A.  Fabricius  Bibl.  Grsec.  Lib.  v.  c.  i.  p.  38-47] 


AND  THEIR  APPLICATION.  103 

'  We  have  suffered  much  in  the  loss  of  IrencBus'  work  on 
Heresies,  in  which  many  passages  from  the  Apocalypse, 
and  the  2d  Epistle  of  Peter,  were  quoted.  Fragments  only 
of  it  are  to  be  found  in  Epiphanius. 

XIV.  With  respect  to  learning^  we  must 
take  care  to  follow  those  among  the  Fathers 
who  were  well  instructed,  and  who  applied 
themselves  diligently  to  the  grammatical  in- 
terpretation of  Scripture. 

XV.  With  respect  to  the  several  classes  of 
books,  commentaries  hold  the  first  place ;  and 
in  them  those  passages  are  most  deserving  of 
the  attention  of  the  critic  which  treat  of  single 
words ;  and  which  shew,  without  ambiguity, 
what  the  writer  found  in  his  copy ;  for  some- 
times nothing  more  than  the  general  meaning 
of  the  passage  is  treated  of.  Upon  a  level  with 
commentaries,  are  those  writers  who,  in  treating 
of  dogmas,  controversies,  or  any  matters  relat- 
ing to  religion,  interpret  Scripture  in  proof  of 
their  argument,  or  deduce  consequences  from 
it,  or  refute  erroneous  interpretations,  in  such 
a  way  as  to  shew  what  was  the  reading  which 
they  found  in  their  manuscripts.  Still  more 
valuable  are  those  who  expressly  quote  or 
defend  the  readings  of  ancient  manuscripts. 
And  in  this  point  of  view,  the  writings  of  he- 
retics and  unbelievers  may  be  applied  to  the 


J  04  WRITINGS  OF  THE  FATHERS, 

support  of  the  true  reading.  Thus  when  Julian 
objects  ag-ainst  the  Christians/  that  John  calls 
Jesus  "koyov  ^£ov,  and  again  that  he  calls  him 
God;  all  must  see  that  the  reference  is  to 
1  John  V.  20.  There  are  more  passages  of  the 
same  kind  in  the  fragments  of  Julian,  preserved 
by  Ci/ril,  which  I  do  not  find  to  have  been 
noticed  by  learned  men. 

''See  Cyrilli  Alexandrini  opp.  ed.  Auberti.  vi.  327,  and 
also  his  work  against  Julian,  Lib.  x.  at  the  beginning. 
[Ernestisays,  "quod  ad  1,  Johann.  v.  extr.  pertinere  omnes 
vident."  The  translator  has  supplied  the  number  of  the 
rerse  to  which  he  supposed  the  author  to  refer.  The  first 
expression  of  Julian,  the  Xoyov  B-iov  as  clearly  refers  to  John 


XVI.  But  this  reference  to  the  Fathers  must 
be  made  with  a  cautious  regard  to  many  cir- 
cumstances. For,  Jirst,  when  the  text  is  in- 
serted in  a  commentary,  we  must  examine 
whether  it  has  been  edited  from  a  manuscript 
or  from  a  printed  copy  ;  as  in  the  printed  com- 
mentaries of  O^cumenius,  it  is  tolerably  clear 
that  the  text  has  been  inserted  by  Morell  from 
the  printed  text  of  Erasmus  ;  and  secondly,  we 
must  examine  in  those  passages  where  the 
words  of  Scripture  are  simply  quoted,  on  what 
grounds  the  editor  has  proceeded ;  whether  he 
has   \r\\Qr\  them  from  an  ancient  manuscript, 


AND  THEIR  APPLICATION.  105 

or  from  a  printed  copy,   as  we  know  has  fre- 
quently been  done.^ 

s  Especially  in  the  sixteenth  century,  when,  in  the  editions 
of  the  Fathers,  printed  at  Rome  and  in  France,  the  text 
was  generally  altered  into  conformity  with  the  Vulgate. 

XVII.  Thirdly^  we  must  be  careful  not  to 
conclude  rashly  from  the  silence  of  the  Fathers, 
either  in  interpreting-  or  disputing,  that  they 
were  ignorant  of  any  particular  reading,  or 
judged  it  spurious.  For  in  inrerpretation,  it 
still  frequently  happens,  that  many  things  are 
omitted,  or,  at  any  rate,  slightly  touched  upon  ; 
so  that  we  need  not  wonder  if  the  same  prac- 
tice prevailed  among  the  ancients.     Thus,  in 

Rom.  xi.  6,  tlie  clause  «  ^s  st, IvTizri  IcW  soyov, 

is  not  interpreted  by  Chrysostom^  in  his  Com- 
mentary, nor  by  any  of  the  Greek  Fathers, 
except  Theophylact.  And  yet  it  appears  from 
the  Catena  MS.  Augustana,  extracts  of  which 
are  given  by  Ehinger  in  his  Hist.  Eccl.  Sec. 
XV.  p.  67*2,  that  Clvry^ostom  had  the  clause 
in  the  copy  which  he  used.  Another  memor- 
able example,  relating  to  John  v.  may  be  found 
in  Wesseling's  Disp.  ad  Marmor  vetus,  p.  19. 
In  disputations  also,  even  when  managed  with 
the  greatest  care,  all  the  arguments  do  not 
always  occur  to  the  mind  of  the  writer,  and  the 


106  WRITINGS  OF  THE  FATHERS, 

best  known  and  most  suitable  sometimes  escape 
his  recollection.  Thus  Chrysostom  had  the 
right  reading  of  Rom.  ix.  5,  and  yet  he  did 
not  use  it  in  his  dispute  with  the  Arians.  See 
Mill  ad  loc.  Such  omissions  might  arise  from 
a  diversity  of  interpretation:  and,  besides,  theo- 
logians are  in  the  habit  of  quoting  certain  es- 
tablished texts,  to  the  omission  of  others  which 
are  more  to  the  purpose.** 

^  Yet  the  common  silence  of  all  the  Fathers,  renders  the 
genuineness  of  a  reading  suspicious  ;  as,  for  example,  the 
famous  text  I  John  v.  7?  which  is  quoted  by  no  Greek 
Father. 

XVIII.  They,  however,  are  decidedly  wrong, 
who  with  Whitby,  Mcestricht,^  and  others,  to- 
tally deny  the  legitimacy  of  supplying  varieties 
in  the  reading,  especially  important  varieties, 
from  the  works  of  the  P'athers ;  for  tiiis  can  be 
denied  only  in  those  passages  where  they 
quote  casually  and  from  memory,  and  where, 
consequently,  doubts  may  exist  as  to  what  read- 
ing they  had  in  their  copies.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  quite  absurd  to  suppose  they  would 
give  a  formal  interpretation  of  that  which  was 
not  in  their  copies.  Besides,  such  reasoners 
do  thus  unwittingly  throw  doubts  u{)on  the 
genuineness  of  the  Vulgate  text,  into  which  it 


AND  THEIR  APPLICATION.  107 

is  clear  that  some  readings  were  introduced  by 
the  earliest  editors  from  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers.  Finally,  they  themselves,  in  defend- 
ing readings,  use  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers, 
and  sometimes  it  alone,  which  would  be  quite 
futile  if  they  possessed  no  authority  in  this 
matter.  Nor  is  the  example  of  Irenceus  fairly 
produced  by  Michdelis,  de  V.  L.  N.  T.,  §  14, 
to  show  that  the  readings  of  the  Fathers  ought 
to  yield  to  those  of  manuscripts  and  versions.'^ 
For  his  work  does  not  exist  in  Greek,  nor  is 
it  a  commentary  upon  the  Scripture.  The 
learned  Glasse  has  pronounced  a  very  sensible 
judgment  on  this  matter,  in  his  Phil  Sac.  L. 
I.  Tr.  ii.,  p.  i.  memb.  3,  n.  2;  and  decides, 
that  where  manuscripts  oppose  each  other,  the 
true  reading  may  be  determined  from  the 
writings  of  the  Greek  Fathers.' 

'  [The  translator  supposes  that  the  opinions  of  Mcestricht, 
on  this  subject  are  to  be  found  in  his  Canon  Script.  Sac. 
&c.  Jena  17'25.  Whitby's  are  given  in  his  Diss,  de  S.  S. 
interpretatione  secundum  Patrum  Commentarios,  Lond. 
1714.] 

^  The  reverse  of  this  appears  from  Matt,  xviii.  11,  which 
is  omitted  in  some  manuscripts ;  and  yet  its  genuineness  is 
proved  from  Chrysostom,  Theophylaci,  and  Euthymius  Ziga- 
benus,  who  all  quote  it. 

'  We  may  add,  that  the  quotations  of  the  Fathers  have 
critical  weight,  1.  When  they  appeal  to  manuscripts.     2. 


108  WRITINGS  OF  THE  FATHERS, 

When  they  subjoin  an  explanation.  3.  When  they  pro- 
duce several  parallel  passages.  4.  When  the  quotation  is 
so  long  as  to  render  it  improbable  they  quoted  by  memory. 
5.  M^hen  the  same  passages  are  often  repeated  in  the  same 
words.  6.  When  they  are  supported  by  mantiscripts  and 
versions.  [Much  still  remains  to  be  done  in  critically  as- 
certaining the  readings  of  the  Fathers.  Griesbach  has  made 
an  important  addition  to  this  branch  of  the  critical  appa- 
ratus, by  collating  all  the  passages  quoted  by  Origen  and 
Clemens  Alex.     See  his  Symb.  Crit.  II.  229,  to  the  end.] 

XIX.  So  much  respecting  the  critical  use 
of  the  works  of  the  Fathers  :  we  have  now,  as 
was  proposed,  to  speak  of  their  hermeneutical 
application.  And,  as  our  first  object  in  this 
book  is  to  lay  down  grammatical  principles  of 
interpretation,  so  is  it  clear  that  the  writings 
of  the  Fathers  ought  to  be  in  the  first  place 
applied  to  this  purpose.  Not  that  we  would 
despise  their  allegorical  system,  provided  it  be 
managed  with  sobriety  and  modesty ;  but  as  it 
cannot  be  called  interpretation,  it  should  be 
reserved  for  popular  addresses.™ 

"  [It  must,  however,  be  kept  in  mind,  that  a  preacher 
cannot  conscientiously  give  an  allegorical  interpretation  of 
a  passage  of  Scripture,  unless  he  is  convinced  that  such  an 
interpretation  was  in  the  mind  of  the  sacred  writer.  The 
existence  of  such  an  intention  must  be  ascertained  upon 
grammatical  grounds ;  and  the  only  legitimate  difference 
between  a  Scholastic  interpretation  and  a  popular  discourse 
is,  that  in  the  latter  we  may  state  merely  the  results,  while 


AND  THEIR  APPLICATION,  109 

in  the  former  we  must  state  tbe  steps  by  which  we  have 
arrived  at  them.] 


XX.  Origen  gave  the  first  example  of  gram- 
matical interpretation,  worthy  of  a  scholar  and 
theologian,  as  appears  from  his  Scholia,  and 
other  books,  especially  that  entitled  c/y/xg/wcs/g ; 
and   that,   almost  everything  valuable  in  this 
branch  of  letters,  which  was  possessed  by  the 
ancient  church,  originated  with  him,  has  been 
proved  by  induction  in  my  Disp.  de  Origene, 
&c.,  §  27,  28,  29.     It  must  be  allowed,  how- 
ever, that  something  was  added  to  the  labours 
of  Origen,  by  the  talents,  learning,  and  ac- 
curacy of  his  successors. 

XXL  Nor,  in  the  present  day,  ought  we  to 
despise  that  which  the  ancient  church  pos- 
sessed from  the  system  started  by  Origen; 
nor  are  the  writers  who  followed  him  to  be 
neglected  for  the  sake  of  novelties.  For  all 
that  the  present  age  possesses  in  this  matter, 
beyond  what  was  possessed  by  the  ancient 
church,  is  not  much  in  quantity,  nor  of  very 
high  importance  :  and  we  often  see  interpre- 
tations praised  as  being  new,  which  are  in 
reality  of  a  very  old  standing."  Besides  many 
passages  which  the  early  church,   from  its  fa- 


110  WRITINGS  OF  THE   FATHERS, 

miliarity  with  the  genius  of  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, interpreted  rightly,  have  been  mis- 
taken by  modern  interpreters,  misled  by  the 
errors  or  ambiguities  of  versions.  Wesseling 
in  his  Disp.  ad  Marmor  vet.  p.  21,  has  clearly 
shown  this  respecting  the  Census  in  Luke  ii. 
1,  2.  Examples  may  also  be  found  in  my 
Disp.  de  Origene,  and  in  other  writers. 

°  Thus  TTiffTiv  'Tu^i^itv  Acts  xvii.  31,  was  explained  by 
Chrysostom  and  Theophylact,  fidem  facere,  to  give  a  con- 
vincing proof :  so  that  they  judge  rashly  who  consider  this 
as  a  new  interpretation. 

XXII  The  student,  therefore,  must  make 
himself  acquainted  not  only  with  those  com- 
mentaries of  the  ancients  which  relate  to  gram- 
matical interpretation,  and  which  will  be  enu- 
merated elsewhere  ;  but  also  with  those  of  the 
allegorical,  dogmatic,  and  controversial  classes, 
which  may  throw  light  upon  the  interpretation. 
And  in  the  use  of  these,  he  ought  particularly 
to  consult  those  passages  in  which  difficult 
texts  are  handled ;  and  either  vindicated  from 
objections,  or  by  argument  applied  to  the  il- 
lustration or  demonstration  of  some  point  of 
doctrine.  Luther,  in  his  Epistles,  i.  27,  says 
with   truth,   that  Jerome  interprets    Scripture 


AND  THEIR  APPLICATION.  Ill 

better  when  he  does  it  casually,  as  in  his  Epis- 
tles, than  when  he  ^tpplies  himself  professedly 
to  interpretation. ° 

°  We  may  illustrate  the  remark  of  Luther  by  two  ex- 
amples. In  Matt.  vi.  11.  Jerome  renders  Wioua-tovfuturumj 
crastimum  "T)nD  DHS  which  form  Matthew  himself 
had  used.  In  Gal.  v.  12,  aToxo-^ovrai  r.  %.  Ti^iKOTTiff^ucrav.  is 
excellently  explained  by  Jerome,  "  si  enim  exspoliatio  mem- 
bri  proficit,  quanto  magis  abscissio."  Neither  of  these  pas- 
sages require  any  further  explanation.  [Certainly  these  in- 
terpretations admit  of  some  question  ;  for  how  did  Jerome^ 
or  how  can  Dr.  Ammon  know  what  form  Matthew  used,  sup- 
posing him  to  have  written  in  Hebrew.  As  to  Gal.  v.  12, 
Jerome's  interpretation  is  also  that  of  Chrysostom,  Theo- 
doret^  and  Theophylact.  Koppe  renders  the  clause,  non  modo 
circumcidant  se,  sed,  si  velint  etiam  mutilent  se.  Compare 
Philipp.  iii.  2,  3.  Both  the  syntax,  and  the  use  of  the  word 
aTrox-oTTidoci  are  of  very  difficult  interpretation.  Koppe  ob- 
serves, that  'd(piXov  is  no  where  else  joined  to  an  indicative : 
but  see  2  Cor.  xi.  1.  o^iXov  avu^iffSi.'] 

XXIII.  Nor  will  it  be  without  its  use,  to 
examine  carefully  the  sense  in  which  the  Greek 
Fathers  use  expressions  borrowed  from  Scrip- 
ture, as  this  may  throw  light  upon  the  Scrip- 
ture itself.  Of  this  class  many  may  be  found, 
as  I  have  before  mentioned,  by  the  misappre- 
hension of  which  men  give  themselves  much 
unnecessary  trouble,  or  by  wandering  from  the 
true  sense  are  thrown  into  difficulties  and  dis- 
putes.    It  will  be  sufficient  to  produce  a  few 


112  WRITINGS  OF  THE  FATHERS, 

examples.  It  is  clear  that  Clemens  Rom,  in 
his  Ep.  I.  p.  m.  53,  uses  -/.avovcc  to  express  the 
limits  of  an  office  or  province  :  and  this  he 
borrows  from  2  Cor.  x.  13.  The  same  Father, 
p.  20,  in  the  words  'iricoZg  h-o%  jjX^si/  b  xIim'ttu) 
akaZoviiag,  hvh\  V'7rs^r,(paviag,  xa/crs^  dvvd/Mivog,  d7^Xa 
ra'7rsivo(p^ovuv,  explains  Philipp.  ii.  6,  7.p  Ci/ril 
of  Jerusalem,  Cat.  xi.  p.  m.  222,  referring  to 
1   Cor.  ii.  10,  says   "^i  so't'/v  'irzoo]i  yhuGxov  rd  /3aS?j 

roD  0£oD.  Whence  it  is  clear  that  Igeuvai/  in  the 
Epistle  has  no  emphatic  force :  and  Clemens, 
Ep.  i.  p.  52,  renders  it  by  syz-J'TrTeiv  lyTtsKvipoTig 
stg  rd  (3d^r}  rrig  %iag  'yvu)gsug ;  which  also  shows, 
that  by  (3d'^rj  he  understood  the  Gospel,  as  con- 
taining- the  mystery  of  God,  his  hitherto  con- 
cealed will  respecting  the  salvation  of  mankind. 
The  same  Cyrlll,  Cat.  xvi.  p.  429,  renders 
cvyx^mtv,  1  Cor.  ii.  13,  to  interpret,  which  has 
not  been  understood  by  Prevost ;  and  explains 
many  other  words  of  Scripture  in  other  places. 
In  the  Epist.  Cone.  Ephes.  ad  Imp.  in  the  Acta. 
Cone.  p.  296,  we  read  [J^^rd  r:d<sr,g  i^£?.o^^>5ffxg/ag 
s-s-g/A^/a/Agj/,*!  loith  most  devoted  sentiments  of  piety 
towards  thee,  from  Coloss.  ii.  23.  The  reader, 
for  additional  examples,  may  consult  Fromau's 
Obs.  ad  N.  T.  e.  Clemente  Roman. 

P  Cyrill,  Ed.  Helmstadt.  p.  42,  calls  man  as  formed  by 
God,  Twj  UKovoi  ahrov  ;^;aoa«T>j^,   which  illustrates,    1 1  el),    i. 


AND  THEIR   APPLICATION.  113 

3.  [No  further  than  it  is  illustrated  by  Gen.  i.  26.  The 
idea  in  both  cases  seems  that  of  delegated,  and  consequently 
representative  authority ;  that  of  Adam  being  over  the  in- 
ferior  animals,  that  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus  over  all  things 
in  heaven  and  in  earth.] 

1  [Rendered  in  our  version  ivill-worship  :  but  its  connex- 
ion with  croiptcc  and  TccTuvoip^offuv'/i,  shews  that  it  is  to  be 
taken  in  a  good  sense.] 

XXIV.  In  consulting  the  Fathers  for  pur- 
poses of  interpretation,  two  errors  must  be 
avoided  :  first,  we  must  be  careful  not  to  ima- 
gine that  no  interpretation  is  admissible  which 
is  not  to  be  found  in  their  works,  which  seems 
to  be  the  opinion  of  those  who  hold  that  no 
new  interpretation  can  be  discovered :  and  next, 
we  must  avoid  that  common  inconsistency,  of 
assenting  or  dissenting  from  the  opinion  of 
antiquity,  just  as  it  happens  to  coincide  with, 
or  to  oppose  our  own.  See  Wesseling^s  Disp. 
ad  Marmor.  Vet.  de  P.  S.  Quirini  censu.  p. 
21,  22. 


114        THE  CAUSE,  ORIGIN,  AND  CHOICE 


CHAPTER  VI. 

OF  THE  CAUSE,   ORIGIN,   AND  CHOICE  OF 
VARIOUS  READINGS. 

I.  Having  treated  of  the  use  of  manuscripts 
and  printed  editions,  of  versions,  and  the  writings 
of  the  Fathers,  it  remains  for  us  to  consider  the 
subject  of  various  readings,  which  can  be  pro- 
perly treated  only  when  a  previous  knowledge 
of  these  subjects  has  been  acquired."^ 

'  The  subject  of  this  chapter  is  the  theory  of  sacred  criti- 
cism, which  they  who  are  familiar  with  the  labours  of  Sem- 
ler,  Michaelis,  Griesbach,  Hug,  and  others,  will  easily  be 
able  to  form.  We  shall  endeavour  to  add  a  few  observa- 
tions in  the  notes,  which  may  be  useful  to  the  clear  concep- 
tion of  the  subject.  [Semler  in  his  Notes  and  Appendix  to 
Wetstein's  Proleg.  Halle  17'>4,  and  Apparatus  ad  liberalem 
N.  T.  interpretationem,  17G7;  Michaelis,  (C.  B.)  in  his 
tractatio  critica  de  variis  Lectionibus  N.  T. ;  Griesbach  in 
his  Symbola  Critica,  and  Prefaces  to  N.  T. ;  Hug  in  his  In- 
troduction,  F.  437,  seq.] 

n.  If  the  autographs  of  the  Apostles  still 
remained,  or  if  there  existed  but  one  ancient 


OF  VARIOUS  READINGS.  115 

manuscript,  without  either  ancient  versions  or 
commentaries,  in  either  case  there  could  be  no 
such  thing  as  varieties  in  the  readings.  Of 
these  suppositions,  however,  the  former  coukl 
not  have  happened  without  miracle  ;  the  latter 
it  would  be  madness  to  wish  for.  And  yet 
those  do  seem  to  wish  for  it,  who,  from  the 
time  of  Erasmus  down  to  the  present  day,  have 
set  themselves  against  the  collection  of  various 
readings,  through  ignorance  of  the  real  nature 
and  effects  of  biblical  criticism. 

III.  But  now,  when  so  many  manuscripts 
exist  of  the  sacred  books,  written  at  different 
times,  many  of  them  in  barbarous  ages,  by 
men  little  skilled  in  Greek;  for  even  women 
(Euseb.  vi.  3,)  and  Latin  copyists  wrote  Greek 
copies ;  when,  moreover,  so  many  ancient  ver- 
sions and  commentaries,  treating  of  the  words 
of  these  books,  are  extant ;  and  finally,  so  many 
printed  editions;  it  must  follow  of  necessity, 
that  there  are  more  various  readings  of  the 
New  Testament  than  of  any  other  ancient 
book  whatever.  But  that  all  these  in  no  de- 
gree detract  from  their  integrity,  has  been 
already  shown.^ 

^  Various  readings  existed  so  early  as  the  time  of  Clemens 
Alexandrinus,  for  he  mentions  two  readings  of  2  Cor.  v.  3, 
\vbvffu,iJ.i\ioi  and  lK^ticrtx.f/.ivoi.     (Ecumenius  who  took  his  read- 


116        THE  CAUSE,  ORIGIN,  AND  CHOICE 

ings  from  ancient  copies,  notices  on  1  Cor.  xv.  51,  that  in 
some  copies  lu  is  placed  before  aXXay^fra^sS^a,  and  suppress- 
ed before  xotiJi,Yt^ri!rofjt,i^ot,. 

IV.  We  have  therefore  to  oppose  not  only 
the  objections  of  Atheists  and  Deists,  but  also 
the  ignorance  of  well  meaning  men,  which 
sometimes  operates  in  the  same  direction.  In 
this  last  class  we  may  notice  Whitby,  the  eager 
antagonist  of  Mill,  who  treated  the  whole  sub- 
ject with  great  weakness,  and  as  far  as  in  him 
lay,  introduced  a  scepticism  most  favourable 
to  the  views  of  the  Romanists.  It  is  indeed 
wonderful  that  his  book  and  its  object  could 
ever  receive  the  'approbation  of  good  men  ; 
and,  as  Pfaff  well  observes,  that  men  should 
have  been  found  in  an  enlightened  age,  capable 
of  venting  such  silly  objections  against  the  va- 
rious readings  collected  by  Mill ;  whereas  they 
ought  to  have  joined  the  learned  and  pious 
Bengel,  in  acknowledging  the  inestimable  bene- 
fit which  Mill  had  bestowed  upon  the  Church. 
But  the  same  age  is  not  equally  bright  in  every 
department  of  letters  :  and  the  theology  preva- 
lent at  the  beginning  of  last  century,  being 
principally  dogmatic  and  scholastic,  was  little 
adapted  for  aj^plication  to  sacred  criticism.* 

'  See  Griesbacirs   Prfpf.   at   N.  T.   Vol.    I.    p.    V>\\    se.j. 
l^Vhitby  opi)Osed  Mill  in  his  Exameu  variantiuin  lectiouum 


OF  VARIOUS  READINGS.  117 

J.  JMillii  in  N.  T.  opera  et  studio  Dan.  Whitby,  London 
1710.  It  was  reprinted  with  an  introduction  by  Haver- 
camp  at  Ijyden  1733.  Pfaff's  work  is  entitled,  Diss,  critica 
de  genuinis  N.  T.  lectionibus,  in  his  Syntagma  Diss.  Theol. 
Stutgardt  1720.] 

V.  From  what  has  been  already  said,  it  will 
be  clear  that  the  sources  of  various  readings  are 
four  in  number ;  and  that  they  originate  from 

manuscripts^  from  ancient  versions^  from  the 
quotations  of  the  Fathers,  or  from  printed  edi- 
tions.  Of  the  nature  and  history  of  each  of 
these  sources,  enough  has  been  said  in  pre- 
ceding chapters. 

VI.  Of  various  readings,  as  they  originate 
from  manuscripts,  there  are  many  causes.  The 
first  and  most  extensive  is  the  carelessness  or 
ignorance  of  copyists.  For  when  a  book  was 
copied  by  dictation,  the  dictator  sometimes 
pronounced  the  letters  indistinctly,  or  run  the 
words  into  one  another,  and  the  writer  heard 
imperfectly  what  was  dictated  to  him  :  or  if  the 
copyist  wrote  even  from  a  good  manuscript 
laid  before  him,  he  sometimes  omitted  or  trans- 
posed words,  or  joined  or  divided  them  impro- 
perly ;  he  substituted  familiar  ideas  for  those 
which  he  did  not  understand,  and  introduced 
glosses  and  scholia  into  the  text,  and  thus 
many  errors  and  various  readings  were  intro- 


118        THE  CAUSE,  ORIGIN,  AND  CHOICE 

diiced  into  their  copies."  If  the  reader  wishes 
to  see  this  subject  fully  examined  and  illus- 
trated, he  may  consult  L,e  Clcrds  Ars.  Critica, 
p.  iii.  sect  1 ,  or  Pfuff^  de  Var.  Lect.  N.  T.,  who 
has  drawn  his  materials  from  Le  Clerc,  or, 
above  all,  Michaelii  treatise  with  same  title. 

"  Other  sources  of  various  readings  may  easily  be  pointed 
out  by  any  one  accustomed  to  the  examination  of  manu- 
scripts. [The  recurrence  of  the  same  word  or  syllable  is 
a  common  source  of  error.  Thus  in  the  Nov.  Test.  Kop- 
pianum,  Rom»  xi.  22,  instead  of  l^rJ  1>\  ai  ^^^nffromra,  lav 
Wifiiivn;  T>j  ^^mrToryiTi,  appears  Wi  5s  tr\  ^^vnrrorrsTu  This 
omission  is  found  in  the  editions  of  1806  and  1824.  For 
similar  sources  of  error  in  IManuscripts,  see  Griesbach's 
Proleg.  N.  T.  I.  Sec.  iii.  §  9,  10.] 

VII.  Another  source  of  error  has  been  the 
rashness  and  ignorance  of  correctors^  of  which 
even  Origen  had  reason  to  complain  on  Matt, 
chap.  xix.  For  they  were  in  the  habit  of 
changing,  correcting,  or  interpreting,  whatever 
appeared  to  them  obscure,  harsh,  superfluous, 
ill-arranged,  or  omitted,  and  finally,  whatever 
they  thought  adverse  to  sound  doctrine,  and 
favourable  to  the  opinions  of  heretics  ;  and  thus 
for  many  reasons  they  ventured  to  interpolate 
the  text.^  In  this  the  Latins  were  most  faulty, 
who  even  interpolated  their  Greek  copies  from 
the  Latin  version,  as  has  been  before  observed. 


OF  VARIOUS   READINGS.  119 

See  on  this  subject  Pfaif,  c.  x.,  and  Michaelis, 
§7. 

^  In  3Iatt.  xxvii.  16,  17,  the  reading  was  "I'/iirovs  BappaCa;. 
"Itktovs  was  omitted  from  a  mistaken  scruple  of  applying 
it  to  a  bad  man.  [Griesbach,  however,  does  not  admit 
'Inffov;  either  into  the  text  or  margin-]  In  Mark  xi.  32, 
for  \(poQovvTo,  some  over  zealous  Grammarian  inserted 
(poiovfMv  [or  rather  (poSodfu^a,  see  Griesbach  ad  loc]  In 
1  Tim.  iv.  3,  they  misinterpreted  ^tsXswovrwv  and  v.  3,  XH"-^' 
Other  additions  may  be  found  in  Matt.  xx.  28.  Mark  xvi. 
8,  14 ;  Luke  vi.  5,  and  omissions  in  Matt.  vi.  13,  xvi.  2, 
3,  Mark  xvi.  9 — 25;  Luke  xxii.  42,  44;  John  viii.  1 — 11. 
[Respecting  the  Latin  interpolations,  see  the  contrary 
opinion  of  Griesbach,  Proleg.  in  N.  T.  I.  Sec.  iii.  §  15, 
and  in  Symb.  Crit.  I.  100.  Woide  in  Pref.  to  Codex  Alex- 
andrinus,  and  the  latest  opinion  of  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Intro- 
duction 11-  1G3,  seq.] 

VIII.  Next,  we  may  reckon  the  impiety  of 
heretics  and  impostors,  which,  however,  has 
seldom  done  much  harm,  as  the  impudence  of 
their  corruptions  was  too  palpable.  See  Mill, 
Proleg.  n.  306,  and  PfafF,  c.  ll.y  And  even 
those  who,  without  any  intention  of  altering 
the  text,  introduced  scholia  or  glosses  between 
the  lines,  or  in  the  margin,  for  the  use  of  the 
unlearned,  or  for  their  own,  did  thereby  give 
occasion  to  the  introduction  of  spurious  read- 
ings, as  their  glosses  were,  through  ignorance, 
admitted  into  the  text.     That  this  reallv  took 


120        THE  CAUSE,  ORIGIN,   AND  CHOICE 

place  at  a  very  early  period,  may  be  proved 
by  satisfactory  testimony. 

y  Thus  Epiphanius  witnesses  that  Marcion,  from  his  hoe?- 
tilitv  to  the  Mosaic  law,  changed  Matt.  v.  11,  into  a  con- 
trary sense.     See  Mill,  Proleg.  §  328,  300. 

IX.  There  are  various  principles  upon  which 
readings  may  he  estimated.  For  they  may  be 
considered  either  abstractedly  in  themselves, 
or  judged  according  to  their  origin.  When 
they  are  considered  in  themselves,  we  have  to 
estimate  either  the  weight  (gravitas),  or  the 
goodness  of  the  reading.  For,  not  to  speak  of 
minutige,  such  as  articles,  pronouns,  and  the 
order  of  words,  some  readings  are  clearly,  both 
as  to  the  words  and  the  sense,  upon  an  equality  : 
some  are  equal  only  in  the  sense,  while  the 
expression  in  the  one  is  more  accurate  or  ele- 
gant than  that  in  the  other :  some  again  differ 
as  to  the  sense,  either  by  a  different  choice  of 
words,  or  by  the  addition  or  omission  of  ideas.^ 

^  As  examples  of  each  class  we  have,  1st.  Luke  i.  42, 
where  some  copies  read  u,vi(puvn(n,  others  a.viSot}<ri.  2d.  In 
Heb.  ix.  12,  some  copies  read  iv^ofiivo;,  others  more  accu- 
rately su^a^svaj.     3d.  Rom.  ix.  5,  some  copies  read  oj  others 

X.  The  goodness  of  a  reading  relates  partly  to 


OF  VARIOUS  READINGS.  121 

the  iDords,  and  partly  to  the  sense  :  for  we  call 
that  a  better  reading,  which,  considered  gram- 
matically and  rhetorically,  has  more  propriety 
and  elegance,  or,  at  any  rate,  more  accuracy. 
In  the  New  Testament  these  considerations 
must  be  taken  according  to  the  idioms  of  the 
Hebrew  language.^  But  still  more  is  the  good- 
ness of  a  reading  marked  by  its  accordance 
with  the  design  of  the  author,  the  scope  of  the 
whole  passage,  and  the  general  analogy  of 
doctrine  and  revealed  truth.^  Thus,  in  1  Tim. 
iii.  16,  we  say  that  ^so?  is  the  preferable  read- 
ing, not  because  it  affords  an  argument  for  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  but  because  it  alone  agrees 
with  the  context,  and  is  grammatically  the 
most  correct. 

^  Thus  in  Matt.  v.  47,  u^iktpoh;  is  a  better  reading  than 
(p'lkovs.  and  V.  10,  hxaioffur/t  than  IXf/ifj^ocrvvvi.  In  Heb.  viii. 
11,  TXrifflov  is  to  be  preferred  to  ToXlrtiv;  all  because  they 
accord  better  with  the  Hebrew  usage. 

*•  Add,  also,  this  rule  which  Bengel  has  often  applied ; 
that  reading  is  to  be  preferred,  which  is  such  that  all  the 
others  have  an  appearance  of  being  derived  from  it.  [We 
may  add  also,  the  following  rules  from  Griesbach,  some  of 
which  do  not  harmonize  with  Ernesti's,  but  are  founded  on 
a  more  reasonable  estimate  of  probabilities. 

1.  CcBteris  paribus,  the  shorter  reading  is  to  be  preferred 
to  the  longer. 

2.  The  more  difficult  and  obscure  reading  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  tliat  in  which  everything  is  made  plain  and  easy. 


122        THE  CAUSE,  ORIGIN,  AND   CHOICE 

3.  Harsher  readings,  that  is,  such  as  contain  ellipses,  He- 
braisms and  solecisms,  are  to  be  preferred  to  those  which  are 
purer. 

4.  Unusiial  readings  are  to  be  preferred  to  those  which 
contain  usual  forms  or  words. 

5.  Unemphatic  readings  are  to  be  preferred  to  emphatic. 

6.  Readings  ^vhich  favour  ascetic  piety  are  suspicious. 

7-  Readings  which  at  first  sight  appear  to  involve  an  ab- 
surdity or  falsehood,  but  are  capable  of  explanation,  are  to 
be  preferred. 

8.  Readings  which  strongly  and  expressly  favour  ortho- 
dox opinions  are  to  be  suspected. 

It  must  be  observed,  that  these  rules  are  to  be  applied 
only  ccBteris  paribus,  and  their  result  is  not  to  be  weighed 
against  the  decisive  authority  of  manuscripts ;  and  that  the 
reasons  for  them  must  be  sought  for  in  the  greater  probabi- 
lity of  a  copyist  erring  in  one  direction,  rather  than  in  an- 
other.    See  Gi'iesbach's  Proleg.  in  N.  T.  I.  Sec.  3.] 


XL  When  readings  are  estimated  by  their 
origin^  we  may  observe  that  those  which  are 
found  in  ancient  uninterpolated  Greek  manu- 
scripts, are  to  be  preferred  to  those  which  are 
found  only  in  later  manuscripts,  or  in  those 
which  are  interpolated  from  the  Latin.^  Those 
readings  also  which  are  found  in  the  more 
ancient  versions  made  from  the  Greek,  and  of 
which  we  can  be  sure  that  the  versionist  found 
them  in  the  manuscript  from  which  he  trans- 
lated, are  to  be  ])reterrcd  to  readings  found 
Only  in  versions  made  from  other  versions.** 


OF  VARIOUS  READINGS.  123 

=  In  estimating  the  testimony  of  witnesses,  we  ought  to 
consider,  1.  The  age  of  the  witness.  2.  His  credibility. 
3.   The  concurrence  of  different  witnesses. 

^  The  whole  context  of  a  version  ought  therefore  to  be 
critically  examined,  before  it  is  used  in  determining  read- 
ings. With  respect  to  most  of  them,  this  is  still  a  deside- 
ratum. [For  general  remarks  on  the  critical  use  of  versions, 
the  reader  may  refer  to  Ch.  iv.  §  28,  29,  30,  and  for  descrip- 
tions of  the  principal  versions  to  §  3 — 20.] 


XII.  When  readings  are  deduced  from  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers,  those  which  are  found 
in  commentaries  and  scholia,  in  passages  where 
a  text  is  explained  or  applied  against  heretics, 
or  where  a  reference  is  expressly  made  to  the 
manuscripts,  ought  to  be  preferred  to  those 
readings  which  are  found  in  mere  casual  quo- 
tations. Various  readings,  however,  collected 
from  the  Latin  Fathers,  if  you  except  Jerome 
and  a  few  others,  who  were  skilled  in  Greek, 
ought  to  be  considered  as  varieties  of  the  Vetus 
Itala,  or  of  the  Hieronymian  version,  not  of 
the  Greek  text.^ 


^  [If,  in  a  regular  commentary,  with  the  text  prefixed,  a 
reading  be  found  in  the  text,  but  not  in  the  commentary, 
the  silence  of  the  commentary  is  to  be  considered  as 
weightier  evidence  than  the  insertion  in  the  text ;  that  is, 
when  the  word  is  important,  and  when  the  commentary  is 
usually  verbal.  Thus  1  Cor.  vii.  5.  Most  of  the  Manu- 
scripts of  Chrysostom  read  vvi<rrua,'  but  all  omit  it  in  the 


124        THE  CAUSE,  ORIGIN,  AND  CHOICE 

commentary.     Hence,  we  may  consider   Chrysostom  as   a 
witness  against  that  reading.] 

XIII.  The  various  readings  of  editions  are 
to  be  estimated,  not  by  the  fame  of  the  edition 
in  which  they  are  found,  but  by  the  source 
where  the  editor  found  them ;  that  is,  by  the 
manuscripts,  versions,  and  Fathers,  for  we  have 
before  observed,  that  the  printed  text  must  be 
formed  from  these.  Editions  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament have  of  themselves,  therefore,  no  au- 
thority in  this  matter. 

XIV.  Hitherto  we  have  given  rules  for  es- 
timating: the  individuals  of  each  class  of  testi- 
mony.  But  the  classes  have  also  a  relative 
value  tow^ards  one  another.  The  first  place 
must  be  given  to  uninterpolated  Greek  copies, 
especially  when  they  agree  in  a  reading  ;^  for 
we  judge  thus  in  every  other  field  of  criticism. 
Nearly  on  a  footing  with  these  we  may  place 
the  Greek  Fathers  of  the  first  class,  together 
with  Jerome  and  such  writers  ;  just  as  in  pro- 
fane criticism,  when  the  manuscripts  disagree, 
we  decide  from  the  quotations  of  the  gram- 
marians or  others.  The  second  place  must  be 
iriven  to  the  readinorg  of  ancient  versions  made 
from  the  Greek,  especially  where  the  clear 
goodness  of  the  reading  proves  that  the  variety 


OF  VARIOUS  READINGS.  125 

has  not  been  caused  by  a  blunder  of  the  ver- 
sionist.^  Such  readings  sometimes  attain  a 
weight  equal  to  those  of  the  former  class.  In 
the  tliird  rank  we  may  place,  as  merely  sub- 
sidiary, the  readings  of  interpolated  or  recent 
manuscripts,  of  versions  made  from  other  ver- 
sions, and  the  bare  quotations  of  the  Fathers. 

^  In  every  inquiry  into  the  agreement  of  a  particular 
manuscript  with  other  trust-worthy  witnesses,  we  must 
consider,  1.  What  recension  it  follows,  and  whether  in  this 
point  of  view  it  be  pure  or  mixed.  2.  Whether  the  number 
of  good  readings  which  it  contains,  exceed  the  number  of 
those  which  are  bad  or  futile. 

s  Also,  when  it  is  clear  that  the  version  follows  an  ancient 
recension.  [For  a  short  view  of  the  theories  of  recensions, 
see  Chap.  II.  §  9.  Note  t.] 

XV.  It  ought  not  to  appear  strange,  that 
we  have  placed  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers 
under  particular  circumstances,  and  that  of 
certain  versions,  on  an  equality  with  the  evi- 
dence of  manuscripts ;  nor  even  if  we  assert 
that  such  testimony  may  sometimes  be  pre- 
ferred. For  the  manuscripts  which  the  lathers 
used,  and  from  which  the  versions  were  made, 
were  more  ancient,  and  generally  more  correct, 
than  any  which  we  now  possess.*^  And  we 
have  before  shown,  that  the  purity  of  manu- 
scripts  cannot  be  judged  by  any  surer  test 


126        THE  CAUSE,  ORIGIN,  AND  CHOICE 

than  by  their  consent  with  the  more  ancient 
Greek  Fathers. 

*>  As  in  profane  Greek  literature,  Stobceus,  Atherueus, 
Pausanias,  are  applied  to  emend  the  text  of  the  Tragedians 
and  others,  so  in  the  New  Testament  we  use  the  writings 
of  the  Fathers. 

XVI.  Having  settled  these  points,  it  re- 
mains that  we  should  demonstrate  the  use  of 
various  readings^  and  so  of  the  whole  critical 
apparatus  treated  of  in  this  and  the  preceding 
chapters,  by  certain  observations  or  canons  as 
they  are  usually  called.  They  may  be  applied 
in  two  ways,  that  is,  either  critically  or  her- 
meneutically. 

XVII.  The  critical  application  consists  in 
the  choice  of  various  readings :  and  this  ought 
to  be  made  with  so  much  greater  care  and 
modesty  than  in  other  books,  as  the  sacredness 
and  importance  of  the  subject  fully  demands  a 
higher  degree  of  reverence.  On  this  account, 
therefore,  it  is  the  more  necessary  that  it  should 
be  guarded  by  written  canons. 

XVIII.  Such  canons  are  superfluous  in  the 
opinion  of  those  who  hold  that  the  I'cceived 
text  is  in  no  case  to  be  deserted.*  But  such 
men  scarcely  know  what  they  affirm,  for  they 
can  scarcely  say   what  is  the    received   text, 


OF  VARIOUS   READINGS.  127 

unless  they  choose  to  apply  that  term  to  the 
Elzevir  edition,  which,  through  ignorance,  has 
become  a  standard.  In  the  next  place,  they 
attribute  infallibility  to  men,  some  of  whom 
they  would  class  among  heretics,  by  whom 
readings  have  been  inserted  from  mere  con- 
jecture, or  from  the  Latin  version,  as  we  have 
before  shown,  and  as  Bengel  has  proved  by 
many  examples,  p.  436,  437. 

'  In  every  branch  of  letters,  weak  minds  have  always 
scrupled  to  depart  from  received  opinions.  We  need  not 
wonder  therefore,  if  Theologians,  accustomed  to  bow  to  au- 
thority, have  defended  inveterate  errors  in  the  criticism  of 
the  New  Testament.  What  sense,  for  instance,  is  afforded 
in  Acts  iii.  12,  by  Ivindicc,  which  is  still  retained  in  the  best 
editions.  'E^ouffiu  ought  to  be  restored,  as  Semler  has  re- 
marked ;  not  to  mention  other  texts.  [Yet  it  would  be  dif- 
ficult to  construct  a  Canon  which  would  authorize  the  in- 
sertion of  \%ovffia  which  Griesbach  does  not  consider  even 
as  a  probable  reading.  If  wickedness  was  considered  as  a 
reason  why  a  man  could  not  have  miraculous  powers,  John 
ix.  24,  piety  might,  by  parity  of  reason,  be  supposed  a  reason 
for  its  being  granted.] 

XIX.  The  proper  enunciation  of  such  canons 
is  no  easy  task;  nor  can  any  canon  be  so  enun- 
ciated as  to  be  universally  applicable,  or  which 
can  ever  be  applied  without  great  caution. 
And  this  difficulty  arises,  partly  from  the  very 
nature  of  criticism,  in  which  we  have  to  deal 


128        THE  CAUSE,  ORIGIN,  AND  CHOICE 

not  with  certainties,  but  with  probabilities ; 
and  partly  from  the  peculiarity  of  the  diction 
used  by  the  inspired  writers.^  For  as  their 
style  is  very  far  from  being  strictly  grammati- 
cal, it  cannot  be  judged  by  the  ordinary  rules 
laid  down  by  grammarians. 

^  Criticism  may  with  more  ease  be  applied  to  the  writings 
of  Cicero  on  account  of  their  rhetorical  accuracy,  than  to 
those  of  Pliny  ;  and  we  may  apply  general  rules  more  con- 
fidently to  the  emendation  of  the  text  of  Xenophon  and 
Thucydides,  than  to  that  of  Polybius,  [because  we  know 
better  the  rules  of  the  Attic  dialect,  than  of  the  Macedo- 


XX.  Some  critical  canons,  therefore,  which 
may  safely  be  applied  to  other  books,  must  be 
reversed  when  applied  to  the  New  Testament. 
As  for  example,  that  canon  generally  reckon- 
ed the  most  certain,  which  asserts  that  of  two 
readings,  we  ought  to  prefer  that  which  is 
most  consistent  with  grammatical  accuracy. 

XXI.  In  stating  critical  canons,  though  it 
be  impossible  to  embrace  every  thing,  or  to 
satisfy  the  wishes  of  all ;  yet  we  may  and  ought 
to  lay  down  some  rules  with  greater  care  than 
has  yet  been  bestowed  upon  the  subject:'  as 
I  have  already  shown  in  my  Disp.  de  Interpr. 
Grammat.  N.  T.  §  8,  9.  I  shall,  therefore, 
attempt  to  include  the  whole  subject  in  a  few 


OF  VARIOUS  READINGS.  129 

observations,  by  aid  of  which  the  student  may 
be  enabled  to  estimate  readings  with  modera- 
tion and  diligence. 

•  As  in  the  Canons  of  Maestricht,  prefixed  to  his  edition 
of  N.  T.  and  those  of  Pfaff  (de  Var.  Lect.  N.  T.)  The 
subject,  however,  has  since  that  time  been  much  better 
treated  by  Wetstein,  Seniler,  Griesbach,  and  Hug. 

XX II.  In  estimating  readings,  we  must  at- 
tend to  their  antiquity^  their  goodness,  and  their 
truth,  so  as  to  judge  no  reading  true  but  one 
which  is  both  ancient  and  good.  The  con- 
verse, however,  does  not  hold  good,  as  we  are 
not  warranted  in  supposing  every  ancient  and 
good  reading  to  be  true.  For  there  are  often 
several  readings  of  the  same  passage,  all  an- 
cient and  good,  which  yet  cannot  all  be  true  : 
and  varieties  began  to  exist  so  early  as  the 
second  century,  nor  do  the  Fathers  always 
dare  to  decide  between  them,  but  prefer  rather 
to  explain  both  readings,  as  Chrysostom  on  2 
Cor.  V.  3. 

XXIII.  If  one  reading  be  both  ancient  and 
good,  as  'Tr^oTirayiJjhoug  Acts  xvii.  26.  hsy.o^i, 
Gal.  V.  7,  it  ought  to  be  preferred  to  others 
deficient  in  either  of  these  qualities.  If  of  two 
readings  equally  ancient,  one  be  better  than 
the  other,  as  ^sos,  I  Tim.  iii.  16,  'Tr^ox/.iajv,  ib. 
V.  21,  it  ought  to  be  received ;  and  of  several 


130        THE  CAUSE,  ORIGIN,   AND  CHOICE 

equally  good,  the  more  ancient  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred as  hwKCL^oLT^i^di^  1  Tim.  vi.  5.™ 

"*  [Of  these  readings  preferred  by  Ernesti,  two  are  rejected 
by  Griesbach,  who  reads  T^otmrayfitvo;  in  Acts  xvii.  26, 
and  OS  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  The  question  respecting  this  last 
reading  is  a  very  entangled  one,  and  the  different  decisions 
of  Ernesti  and  Griesbach  appear  to  arise  from  their  differ- 
ent notions  of  the  probability  attached  to  goodness,  that  is, 
to  the  grammatical  purity  of  a  reading.  Compare  §  x.  and 
the  Canons  of  Griesbach  given  in  Note  b.] 

XXIV.  Between  readings  which  are  equally 
ancient  and  good,  we  must  decide  partly  by 
books,  and  partly  by  grammatical  rules.  The 
evidence  of  books  must  be  weighed  according 
to  the  rules  laid  down  in  §  11,  12,  14:  the 
grammatical  rules  we  shall  consider  in  the  fol- 
lowing sections. 

XXV.  Readings  which  are  difficult,  un- 
usual, and,  if  we  maybe  allowed  the  expression, 
far-fetched,  are  to  be  preferred  to  those  which 
are  plain,  usual  and  direct,  as  hXyi^ui^rifi^ev^  Eph. 
i.  11.  Thus  also  we  prefer  those  readings, 
which,  at  first  sight,  seem  least  correct,  either 
in  the  sentiment,  as  o  ogy/^o.agi/og  ru  ddiXftp,  Matt. 
V.  22,  ouToo  yd^  ?Jv  'TTvsvfxu,  John  vii.  39,  and 
cuvstdfiffii  1  Cor.  viii.  7,  where  most  copies  read 
Gwri^iia,  from  the  greater  easiness  of  its  inter- 
pretation ;  or  in  the  grammatical  form,  as  e/^wj 


OF  VARIOUS  READINGS.  131 

for  /5wi/,  Mark  xii.  28,  wj  havrov  for  asavrhv,  Gal.  v. 
14,  s'xsrs  for  £%o/Asi/,  1  Tliess.  iv.  9.  And  the  rea- 
son for  this  preference  is,  that  the  copyist  might 
be  tempted  to  alter  the  former  class  of  readings 
into  the  latter,  but  could  have  no  temptation  to 
alter  in  the  contrary  direction.  Thus  Gerhard, 
in  his  Loci  Theologici  de  Resurrectione,  § 
I]?,  follows  Erasmus,  on  1  Cor.  xv.  51,  who, 
on  this  principle,  defends  the  reading  of  the 
Greek  text." 

"  [That  is,  -rdvTis  fiiv  oh  xotju,yiS'/]trofci$x'  yrxvrts  ^£  aXXa- 
•yritrofii^a,  in  preference  to  *«vt£j  f/,iv  Koifinaou-Ja.'  iv  fuins  Ti 
a.>.Xa,yri(TOf^iSa..  This  last  reading  was  adopted  by  Jerome, 
and  is  continued  in  the  modern  Vulgate,  Omnes  quidem  re- 
surgemus,  sed  non  omnes  immutabimur.] 

XXVI.  That  reading  ought  to  be  preferred 
which  is  most  in  analogy  with  the  practice  of 
the  author.  Thus,  in  the  New  Testament,  a 
reading  which  is  Hebraistic,  ought  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  one  purely  Greek,  because  the  latter 
may  have  been  interpolated  by  a  Greek  copyist, 
the  former  could  not.° 

°  Thus  in  Ep.  Jude  1.  riyienrf^ivois  is  a  better  reading  than 
^yaT'/if/ivois,  as  being  more  consistent  with  the  practice  of 
the  Apostles  in  the  introductions  to  their  epistles.  In  Acts 
xvii.  26,  i^  Ivo;  alifiaro;  is  better  than  l|  ho;,  (though  this 
occurs  in  Rom.  ix.  10,)  because  it  is  more  close  to  the  He- 
brew idiom. 


132        THE  CAUSE,  ORIGIN,  AND  CHOICE 

XXVII.  Of  two  readings  equal  in  goodness 
and  antiquity,  that  is  to  be  preferred  which 
agrees  with  the  quotations  of  the  Fathers,  and 
with  the  ancient  versions.     See  §  23,  24.P 

P  Thus  l/x'?  is  wanting  in  Codd.  B,  48,  49.  Their  evi- 
dence is  supported  by  Justin  M.  (Apol.  I.  §  20,  p.  24,  Ed. 
Thirlby,)  by  Tertullian,  (Apol.  abv.  gent.  c.  45,)  and  Je- 
rome,  who  testifies  that  sine  causa  was  not  in  the  ancient 
copies.  Why  then  should  we  not  reject  a  superfluous  word, 
foreign  to  the  context,  and  justly  condemned  by  Eichhorn  ? 

XXVIII.  We  must  be  careful  not  to  rest 
too  much  upon  the  authority  of  manuscripts, 
certainly  not  upon  that  of  one  or  two  which 
we  particularly  value  :^  and  we  rest  too  much 
upon  them,  w^hen  w^e  look  to  them  alone,  with- 
out considering  the  grammatical  rules,  and  the 
practice  of  the  author.  Nor,  on  the  other 
hand,  ought  we  to  rest  upon  these  consider- 
ations to  the  neglect  of  manuscripts  ;  for,  if  un- 
supported by  the  evidence  of  manuscripts,  they 
may  deceive  us ;  and  a  reading  may  be  gram- 
matically correct  which  is  not  the  true  one. 
Learned  men  have  erred  in  both  these  ex- 
tremes. 

•J  Thus  Grotius  and  Bengel  attrilmte  too  much  weight  to 
the  Codices  A  and  B  ;  Kipling  to  Codex  D ;  Matthaei  to 
the  testimony  of  Chrysostom,  and  tlie  Moscow  MSS. 

XXIX.  If  the  subject,  the  sense,  and  the 


OF  VARIOUS  READINGS.  i33 

grammar  require  it,  we  must  not  scruple  some- 
times to  prefer  the  authority  of  the  Fathers  and 
ancient  versions  to  that  of  manuscripts,  as  all 
editors  have  done,  some  indeed  incautiously, 
and  Luther  in  his  version  ;  and  under  the  same 
circumstances,  we  may  prefer  the  readings  of 
modern  manuscripts  to  those  of  more  ancient 
ones.  For  these  recent  manuscripts  may  have 
been  copied  from  others  both  ancient  and 
good."^ 

'  [We  may  certainly  act  thus  where  the  old  manuscripts 
vary  among  themselves,  although  none  of  them  should  con- 
tain the  reading  which  we  adopt.  But,  it  may  be  doubted, 
whether  we  can  with  safety  ever  reject  a  reading  in  which 
all  the  old  manuscripts  concur.] 

XXX.  Since  the  evidence  on  which  a  judg- 
ment of  readings  must  be  formed,  seldom 
amounts  to  certainty,  but  must  be  estimated 
by  conjecture  and  acuteness,  we  ought  to  ex- 
ercise a  modesty  which  will  render  our  failures 
more  excuseable."  And  now  enough  has  been 
said  respecting  the  critical  use  of  various  read- 
ings.' 

•  In  criticism,  the  truth  often  rests  upon  a  single  point, 
and  that  so  small  that  it  may  easily  escape  our  notice.  The 
critic  therefore  ought  to  exercise  modesty  in  his  decisions, 
and  urbanity  towards  his  fellow  labourers. 


134        THE  CAUSE,  ORIGIN,  AND  CHOICE 

'  We  may,  however,  add  the  following  rules. 

1.  Manuscripts,  versions,  and  Fathers  which  follow  the 
same  recension,  are  all  to  he  considered  as  constituting  only 
one  witness. 

2.  That  reading  in  which  all  the  recensions  agree  is  the 
best. 

3.  When  the  recensions  diflfer,  that  reading  is  the  more 
probable,  which  the  best  old  editions  contain. 

4.  The  authority  of  recensions  is  determined  by  the  good- 
ness of  their  readings  upon  the  whole  compared  with  other 
manuscripts.  Thus,  for  example,  the  Alexandrine  is  better 
than  the  Western,  though  this  also  is  not  without  good 
readings. 

5.  Readings  which  are  found  in  none  of  the  ancient  re- 
censions, cannot  be  maintained  on  the  authority  of  later 
manuscripts,  however  numerous. 

[These  rules  of  Ammon  will  not  be  found  of  easy  applica- 
tion, for  the  recensions,  (see  chap.  ii.  §  9,  note  t.)  are  not 
like  our  modern  stereotype  editions,  nor  are  all  the  IMSS. 
classed  under  one  recension  facsimiles  of  one  another ;  and 
besides,  many  manuscripts  mix  the  readings  of  different  re- 
censions. With  respect  to  the  third  rule,  the  translator 
cannot  understand  what  is  meant  by  optimcB  editiones  anti- 
que. If  the  old  printed  editions  are  meant,  as  the  Com- 
plutensian  and  Erasmian,  Ammon  differs  widely  from 
Griesbach,  who  holds  that  these  editors  possessed  few  ma- 
nuscripts, and  those  of  inferior  value ;  and,  moreover,  that 
they  did  not  very  well  know  how  to  use  what  they  had.  If 
this  be  not  the  meaning,  the  only  other  sense  of  editio, 
makes  it  synonymous  with  rccensio.  Upon  the  whole,  the 
reader  had  better  consult  Griesbach,  Proleg.  Sec  iii.  p.  77 — 
81.] 

XXXI.  However  desirable  it  may  be  that 
all  the  reasons  of  preference  should  concur  in 


OF  VARIOUS  READINGS.  135 

favour  of  some  one  particular  reading;  yet, 
since  this  seldom  occurs,  we  must  prefer  that 
reading  which  is  supported  by  the  more  nu- 
merous and  more  weighty  reasons.  And,  for 
our  guidance  in  this  matter,  abstract  rules  are 
not  sufficient.  We  must  also  have  experience, 
so  that,  by  the  accurate  addition  and  subtrac- 
tion of  conflicting  reasons,  we  may  be  able  to 
determine  the  real  preponderance  of  the  evi- 
dence, and  determine  accordingly.  And  to 
attain  this  experience,  it  will  be  useful  to  per- 
use the  works  of  those  who  have  written  on 
biblical  criticism  with  accuracy  and  circum- 
spection." 

"  [As  the  Prolegomena  of  Mill  and  Wetstein,  BengeVs 
A  pp.  Crit.  in  N.  T.,  GrieshacK's  Prolegomena  and  Sym- 
bolae  Criticae,  Wetstein's  Libelli  ad  crisin  atque  Interp.  N. 
T.,  Michaelis'  Int.  Vol.  I.  Chap.  vi.  Hm-ne's  Int.  Vol.  II. 
Chap.  8.] 

XXXII.  There  is  a  use  in  various  readings^ 
as  applicable  to  interpretation  and  theology. 
For  sometimes  the  interpretations  of  ancient 
or  modern  commentators,  and  the  arguments 
of  theological  disputants,  can  neither  be  de- 
fended nor  refuted,  unless  we  know  what  read- 
ing they  followed.'^ 

*  Thus  the  Latin  Fathers  maintain  the  universality  of 
the  resurrection,  from  their  reading  of  1  Cor.  xv.  51.     [See 


136        THE  CAUSE,  ORIGIN,   AND  CHOICE 

§  25,  note  n.]  \V'ithout  a  knowledge  of  the  various 
readings  Luther^s  version  can  neither  be  understood  nor 
defended.  Thus  in  2  Pet.  ii.  13,  he  has  von  euerem  Al~ 
mosen,  from  your  charity,  reading  «y«?ra/j  for  u-Ta.Ta.is,  which 
reading  is  preferred  by  Griesbach.  Compare  also,  Heb.  ix. 
14,  with  Luther's  translation. 

XXXIII.  They,  therefore,  have  done  a  use- 
ful service,  who  have  collected  various  readings, 
from  the  sources  already  mentioned.  The  first 
instance  of  such  a  collection  worthy  of  men- 
tion, (for  there  already  existed  something  of 
the  same  kind  in  the  biblical  coUectories,)  is 
that  of  L.  Valla^  who  collated  three  Greek 
manuscripts  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  the 
Latin  version ;  which  was  also  the  object  of 
Lucas  Briigensis.  The  desire  of  publishing 
the  Greek  text,  and  of  adding  an  increased 
value  to  each  successive  edition,  gave  fresh 
vigour  to  this  pursuit,  which  was  followed  by 
Erasmus^  who  first  gave  the  various  readings 
in  notes,  and  then  by  R.  Stejjhen  in  his  edition 
of  1550.  Curcellceus,  however,  was  the  mani 
instrument  of  promoting  this  study,  not  that 
he  himself  produced  anything  very  valuable, 
though  he  certainly  surpassed  all  the  editors 
between  Stephen  and  himself:  but  his  edition 
excited  Fell  to  prepare  his  new  edition  with 
various  readings,  printed  at  Oxford  1675,  and 
reprinted   by  Gregory  in    1703,   and  excited 


OF  VARIOUS  READINGS.  137 

Mill  to  set  about  the  preparation  of  his  great 
work.  But  besides  this,  as  Curcellseus  appear- 
ed, in  his  selection  of  readings,  to  have  fa- 
voured the  Socinians,  and  was  supposed  even 
to  have  forged  readings  in  their  behalf;  a 
new  impulse  was  thus  given  to  the  collation 
of  manuscripts,  and  critical  enquiries  began  to 
be  handled  with  greater  care  and  accuracy 
than  before.  The  character  of  the  age  also 
favoured  this  progress,  as  criticism  in  general 
had  become  a  subject  of  more  careful  examina- 
tion.y 

J  See  Wetstein's  Proleg.  p.  170.  Add  also,  the  works  of 
MichaeliSj  Semler,  Griesbach,  Birch,  Alter,  Matthcei  and 
others. 

XXXIV.  The  first  rank  as  a  critical  edi- 
tor must  be  given  to  J.  Mill,  who,  after  the 
labour  of  thirty  years,  completed  and  published 
at  Oxford  in  1707  his  great  work,  containing 
the  text  of  Elzevir  or  CurcellcEUs^  with  30,000 
various  readings  and  prolegomena  of  great 
learning  and  critical  utility.  This  edition, 
though  it  be  not  without  faults,  some  arising 
from  errors  of  opinion,  such  as  the  too  great 
respect  paid  to  the  Latin  version,  and  the 
Greek  manuscripts  interpolated  from  it ;  others 
from  oversight,  such  as  the  erroneous  naming 


138        THE  CAUSE,  ORIGIN,  AND  CHOICE 

of  manuscripts,  or  false  references  to  the  Fa- 
thers or  to  versions,  is  still,  as  Fabricius  has 
justly  designated  it,  a  work  of  admirable  in- 
dustry and  judgment.  For  whereas.  Mill  often 
gives  a  different  judgment  respecting  readings 
in  his  Prolegomena  from  that  given  in  his 
notes  ;  this,  though  it  may  be  inconvenient  to 
the  reader,  is  highly  to  the  credit  of  his  dili- 
gence :  for  having  read  the  Histoire  Critique 
of  R.  Simon  during  the  course  of  his  labours, 
he  thence  learned  to  correct  many  false  views, 
and  ingenuously  retracted  his  errors  in  the 
Prolegomena.  Whitby's  Examen,  (see  §  4, 
and  note)  though  its  professed  object  of  prov- 
ing the  universal  defensibility  of  the  text  of 
Elzevir  and  CurcellcEUs,  gave  it  favour  in  the 
eyes  of  the  ignorant,  yet  both  its  object  and 
its  execution  are  justly  condemned  by  the 
learned.  See  c.  v.  §  18,  and  c.  iv.  §  29.  The 
canons  prefixed  to  Maestrichfs  edition,  are 
formed  according  to  the  principles  of  Whitby, 
as  may  easily  be  seen  from  comparing  them. 

XXXV.  Kuster,  Bengel,  and  Wetstein,  must 
be  reckoned  as  the  three  next  promoters  of 
biblical  criticism.  For  Kuster,  in  his  reprint 
of  Mill's  edition,  added  readings  from  twelve 
Greek  manuscripts.  His  merits,  however,  would 
have  been  greater,  had  he  edited  the  work  with 


OF  VARIOUS  READINGS.  139 

more  care,  avoided  a  repetition  of  the  errors 
of  the  press,  and  everywhere  corrected  or  en- 
larged the  notes  by  the  Prolegomena. 

XXXVI.  Bengel,  in  his  Apparatus  Criticus, 
not  only  gave  the  readings  of  fifteen  manu- 
scripts previously  uncollated,  but  also  added 
many  from  previous  editions,  together  with 
readings  derived  from  the  Fathers  and  versions; 
and,  by  the  execution  of  his  work,  earned  the 
praise  both  of  diligence  and  of  modesty.  His 
judgment  in  the  choice  of  readings  is  not  ap- 
proved of;  for  he  chose  as  his  criterion  of  the 
true  reading,  the  agreement  of  the  Codex 
Alexandrinus  with  the  Latin  version ;  never 
suspecting,  what  is  sufficiently  evident,  that 
such  an  agreement  argues  the  interpolation  of 
the  manuscript  from  the  version.^  Besides, 
in  opposition  to  his  own  rules,  he  does  not 
give  the  weight  which  he  ought  to  grammatical 
reasons,  in  judging  of  the  goodness  of  a  read- 
ing; and  often  decides  in  opposition  to  these, 
on  the  authority  of  manuscripts  alone,  (see  § 
23,)  and  those  such  as  I  have  described.  Thus, 
in  Eph.  V.  9,  he  prefers  xa^Tog  (pc^rhg,  relying 
upon  the  latinizing  MSS.,  and  still  more  upon 
the  Latin  authorities :  not  considering  that 
xa^'rhg  (p^rhg  is  a  very  frigid  expression,  con- 
trary to  the  usage  of  the  sacred  writers,  and 


140  THE  CAUSE,  ORIGIN  AND  CHOICE 

that  St.  Paul  apparently  changed  the  meta- 
phor by  design,  and  wrote  ptup'^rog  crvsu/xaro;. 
Upon  the  whole,  he  was  deficient  in  the  know- 
ledge of  Greek  f  and  in  the  various  readings 
he  made  improper  omissions,  not  to  mention 
other  errors.  The  Apparatus  Criticuswas  re- 
printed in  1763,  with  the  addition  of  several 
critical  tracts ;  but  in  this  edition,  Bengel 
neither  increased  his  observations  from  Wet- 
stein,  Blanchini,  Sabatier,  and  others,  nor  did 
he  change  his  judgment  respecting  the  autho- 
rity of  the  Alexandrine  manuscript. 

*  [The  reader  will  do  well  to  consider  the  defences  of  the 
Alex.  MS.  against  this  charge  of  latinizing,  by  3Iichaelis 
Introd.  II.  p.  190,  and  Griesbach  Symb.  Crit.  I.  110,  sq.] 

*  Being  deficient  in  profane  literature,  he  entertained 
false  notions  respecting  the  genealogy  of  manuscripts.  He 
rarely  retracted  his  admitted  errors  in  the  Gnomon,  and  on 
this  account  was  chastized  by  Wetstein,  Woljius,  and  Baum- 
garteru 

XXXVII.  Wetstein,  finally,  after  the  la- 
bour of  many  years,  collated  many  manuscripts 
for  the  first  time,  and  recollated  others  that 
had  been  used  before,  inspected  the  versions 
and  quotations  of  the  Fathers,  corrected  the 
errors  of  his  predecessors,  rendered  the  use  of 
his  various  readings  more  easy,  by  describing 
the  character  and  age  of  the  manuscripts  which 


OF  VARIOUS  READINGS.  141 

he  used,  and  thus  carried  off  the  palm  from  all 
who  had  gone  before  him.  His  judgment  of 
readings  is  also  to  be  approved,  having  been 
guided  by  pure  Greek  copies  uninterpolated 
from  the  Latin,  and  by  the  quotations  of  the 
Greek  Fathers.**  In  some  places,  however,  he 
allowed  himself  to  be  misled  by  the  desire  of 
supporting  his  opinion  respecting  the  divinity 
of  Christ.  On  this  account  he  has  been  just- 
ly reprehended  by  Venema  in  his  Exerc.  de 
vera  Divinitate  Christi,  and  by  myself  in  my 
Castigationes  Wetsten.  in  which  I  have  also 
remarked  some  other  points,  which  need  not 
be  repeated  here.  He  is  also  to  be  blamed 
for  not  having  procured  and  inserted  the  va- 
rious readings  of  the  Vatican  manuscript. 

^  It  ought  to  be  mentioned  among  the  merits  of  Wetstein, 
that  he  seldom  or  never  relies  upon  conjecture.  In  using 
versions,  especially  the  Oriental  ones,  he  trusts  too  much  to 
the  accuracy  of  tlie  Latin  translation  ;  he  often  errs  in  his 
references  to  the  Fathers,  and  utters  opinions  formed  upon 
a  hasty  judij^ment,  as  for  example,  on  John  viii.  1 — 11. 
\We  may  add  here,  that  the  theory  of  the  interpolation  of 
the  Greek  text  from  the  Latin  version  originated  with 
Wetstein.] 

XXXVHI.  Some  have  given  the  readings 
of  one  or  more  manuscripts  separately ;  but  it 
is  unnecessary  here  to  mention  all  such  colla- 


142        THE  CAUSE,  ORIGIN,  AND  CHOICE 

tors.  Velesius,  whose  collations  of  sixteen  ma- 
nuscripts are  given  in  Cerdanus'  Adversaria  Sac. 
c.  91,  appears  to  have  acted  with  bad  faith,  by- 
giving  various  readings  without  naming  or 
specifying  the  manuscripts  from  which  he  de- 
rived them,  and  hiding  his  fraud  under  the 
general  and  vague  word  manuscripts.  His  ob- 
ject seems  to  have  been,  to  support  the  autho- 
rity of  the  Vulgate.  Upon  examination,  how- 
ever, it  appears  that  his  various  readings  were 
drawn  not  only  from  manuscripts  posterior  to 
the  Council  of  Florence,  and  corrected  by  the 
Vulgate,  as  Mariana  has  judged  in  the  Pre- 
face to  his  Scholia  on  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament, but  even  directly  from  Latin  manu- 
scripts, as  Wetstein  has  demonstrated,  and  Mi- 
chaelis  [C.  B.  in  his  Tractatio  Critica  de  variis 
lectionibus  N.  T.  &c.]  §  87.  Nor  are  the  read- 
ings of  CaryopJiilus,  published  by  Possinus  at 
the  end  of  the  Catena  on  Mark,  of  much  value ; 
for  the  nature  of  the  manuscripts  from  which 
they  are  taken  is  unknown,  and  it  is  tolerably 
clear  that  they  were  interpolated  from  the 
Latin  version,  to  support  the  credit  of  which 
was  the  object  of  Caryophilus,  (see  Bengel's 
A  pp.  p.  439  :)  although  he  sometimes  prefers  a 
reading  which  differs  from  the  Latin,  and  gives 
as  a  rule  that  this  ought  to  be  done  when  the 


OF  VARIOUS  READINGS.  143 

majority  of  Greek  manuscripts  concur.  Among 
them,  moreover,  are  to  be  found  readings  from 
the  Codex  Vaticanus,  extracted  for  the  use  of 
those  who  were  employed  by  Urban  VIII. , 
upon  an  edition  of  the  New  Testament,  on  the 
plan  of  the  Sixtine  edition  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Of  this  I  have  been  informed  by  learned 
men  at  Rome,  and  besides  all  the  readings 
which  I  have  found  extracted  from  that  manu- 
script, are  to  be  found  among  the  readings  of 
Caryophilus.*^ 

•=  [Velesius  (Peter  Faxard,  Marquis  of  Velez)  collated  six- 
teen manuscripts,  eight  of  which  he  borrowed  from  the  King 
of  Spain's  library.  Mariana  gave  the  collection  to  Cerdanus 
or  De  la  Cerda,  and  from  his  work  they  were  transferred 
into  the  London  Polyglot,  and  admitted  by  Ameiot,  Fell, 
Mill,  and  Bengel.  Wetstein  has  numbered  them  in  his 
catalogue,  but  not  quoted  them.  See  Michaelis  Introd. 
Ch.  viii.  Sect.  vi.  Vol,  II.  p.  351.  For  an  account  of  the 
collection  of  Caryophilus,  see  the  same  section,  under  the 
head  Barherini  MSS.  and  for  notices  of  other  collectors  of 
various  readings,  see  p.  419,  seq.] 

XXXIX.  It  must  be  evident,  from  what  has 
been  said  respecting  the  collectors  of  various 
readings,  how  far  even  the  most  learned  men 
have  been  led  astray  by  hastily  assumed  opi- 
nions respecting  the  authority  of  particular 
manuscripts  or  versions,  as  the  Vetus  Itala,  or 
the  Vulgate,  or  by  their  peculiar  views  of  doc- 


144        THE  CAUSE,  ORIGIN,  AND  CHOICE 

trine.  Nothing,  therefore,  ought  to  be  more 
carefully  guarded  against  than  the  influence  of 
such  prejudices  in  the  formation  of  any  critical 
judgment. 

XL.  These  errors  we  shall  avoid,  if  we 
keep  in  mind  what  has  been  said  respecting 
the  different  sources  of  various  readings  ;  and 
if,  in  selecting  a  reading,  we  always  proceed 
upon  general  rules  ;  not  giving  an  unwarranted 
preference  to  a  particular  reading,  and  then 
looking  about  for  arguments  in  its  favour ; 
but  first  weighing  every  argument  according 
to  pre-established  rules,  and  then  determining 
by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence. 

XLI.  We  must  not  suppose  that  the  work 
of  Biblical  criticism  is  exhausted,  and  that 
nothing  remains  for  us  to  do.  We  ought 
rather  to  be  on  the  watch  for  farther  light,  and 
in  reading  either  ancient  or  modern  copies,  to 
remark  everything  that  bears  upon  this  sub- 
ject, and  to  note  it  in  its  proper  place.*^  I 
have  myself  observed  many  points  either  omit- 
ted or  neglected,  or  erroneously  noticed,  by 
those  who  have  gone  before.  But  enough, 
and  perhaps  more  than  enough,  has  now  been 
said  on  this  branch  of  the  subject.  We  shall 
now  proceed  to  other  subsidiary  instruments 
of  interpretation. 


OF  VARIOUS  READINGS.  145 

*  As  instances  of  passages,  where  further  critical  labour 
is  required  for  the  determination  of  the  true  reading,  the 
reader  may  be  referred  to  Matt.  v.  22,  vi.  13 ;  Mark  xvi.  9 
— 20  ;  Luke  i.  66,  ii.  22 ;  John  xviii.  1  ;  Acts  ii.  30,  iii. 
12,  viii.  37,  X.  33,  xi.  20,  xiii.  18,  xvii.  26,  xviii.  5,  xx.  28, 
xxiii.  9 ;  Rom=  viii.  33,  seq.  x.  16  ;   1  Cor.  iii.  4. 


146  SEPTUAGINT  VERSION,  AND  THE 


CHAPTER  VII. 


OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT  VERSION,  AND  THE  FRAG- 
MENTS OF  AQUILA,  SYMMACHUS,  &C. 

I.  Among  the  subsidiary  aids  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  New  Testament,  none  are 
more  valuable  than  the  Greek  translators  of 
the  Old  Testament,  among  whom  we  must 
give  the  first  place  to  those,  who,  from  the 
vulgar  history  of  the  translation,  are  called  the 
Seventy,  but  whom  we  shall,  with  greater  pro- 
priety, denominate  the  Alexandrine  transla- 
tors.® For  the  unanimous  voice  of  antiquity 
declares  that  this  version  was  made  at  Alex- 
andria :  which  assertion,  however,  is  to  be  un- 
derstood only  of  the  books  which  were  at  that 
time  read  in  the  synagogues.  For  it  can  scarce- 
ly be  doubted  but  that  other  books,  among 
which  I  would  class  Job,  Proverhs,  Canticles, 
and  Ecclesiasticus,  were   translated  at  a  later 


FRAGMENTS  OF  AOUILA,  SYMMACHUS,  &C,     ]47 

period;  and  tlie  version  of  these  lias  by  some 
been  attributed  to  Aquila.  One  thing  is  clear, 
namely,  that  the  whole  version  is  not  by  one 
hand.  This  appears  from  the  great  diversity 
of  styles :  for  in  some  books  the  Hebraisms  are 
strictly  preserved,  while  the  Greek  style  is  ut- 
terly destitute  of  purity  and  elegance  :  in  others 
again,  especially  in  Job  and  the  books  just 
mentioned,  Hebraisms  are  avoided,  and  a  purer 
and  more  elegant  Greek  style  is  affected. 


^  See  Eichhom's  Repert.  Lit.  Or.  I.  p.  266,  where,  by  a 
diligent  examination  of  traditions,  it  is  shewn  that  the 
Alexandrine  Jews  contrived,  by  fabulous  accounts  of  its 
origin,  to  pass  off  this  version  upon  their  brethren  in  Pa- 
lestine, as  being  of  equal  authority  with  the  original,  and 
possessing  in  common  with  it  the  character  and  dignitv  of 
inspiration.  It  appears,  however,  to  have  been  made  at  dif- 
ferent times,  and  by  different  translators,  see  Hody  de 
Text.  Orig.  L.  I.  C.  7—9-  The  Pentateuch  was  first  trans, 
lated,  then  the  Psalms,  then  the  historical  books,  afterwards 
Isaiah,  and  finally  the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Hitherto  we  possess  only  two  fundamental  editions  of  the 
Septuagint :  the  Sixt'me  or  Vatican  of  1587,  re-edited  by  Bos  ; 
and  Grade's,  Oxford  1707,  which  follows  the  Codex  Alex, 
and  has  been  re-editedby  Breitmger.  After  the  labours  of 
Holmes  and  other  learned  men,  it  cannot  be  hoped  that 
much  more  will  be  done  towards  restoring  the  text  of  this 
version.  [Two  fundamental  editions  ought  to  be  mention- 
ed antecedent  to  these,  that  printed  in  the  Complutensian 
Polyglot,  1514,  and  the  Aldine  1518,  both  of  which  texts 
have  frequently  been  reprinted.     For  an  account  of  Holmes's 


148  SEPTUAGINT  VERSION,  AND  THE 

unfinished  edition,  and  its  continuation  by  Parsons,  see 
Home's  Introd.  II.  182,  and  for  a  general  account  of  the 
editions  of  the  Septuagint,  see  INIori  Acroases  Acad.  II.  p. 
108.] 

II.  It  may  be  difficult  exactly  to  account 
for  tlie  Hebraisms  witli  which  the  Greek  of 
this  version  is  so  strongly  tinctured/  Per- 
haps it  arose  from  the  unskilfulness  of  the 
translators,  who  were  unable  to  render  He- 
brew words  and  phrases,  especially  such  as  re- 
lated to  religion,  into  pure  Greek ;  or  it  may 
have  arisen  from  a  certain  superstitious  feeling, 
which  we  know  to  have  prevailed  in  later 
times,  and  which  probably  originated  in  the 
persecution  by  Antiochus,  that  sacred  subjects 
were  dishonoured  by  the  aifectation  of  classical 
elegance.  This  style,  whatever  may  have  been 
the  first  cause  of  its  adoption,  became  the 
standard  which  was  followed  by  all  Jews  writing 
in  Greek  upon  religious  subjects,  who  wished 
to  conform  to  their  ancestral  habits,  and  to 
gain  the  approbation  of  their  brethren.  See 
my  Program  ma,  De  Odio  JudcBorum  in  Unguam 
GrcEcam.  Hence  the  Romaic  version  of  the 
Pentateuch,  and  the  Italian  and  Spaiiish  ver- 
sions of  the  Bible  by  Jews  are  formed  upon 
the  same  principle.  See  Simon,  Bibl.  Crit.  P. 
iv.  p.  133. 


FRAGMENTS  OF  AQUILA,  SYMMACHUS,  &C.      149 

f  The  Greek  style  of  the  Septuagint  may  be  divided  into 
three  classes  :  1st.  Some  parts  are  merely  Hebraistic,  as  the 
version  of  Ecclesiastes  ;  2d.  Some  parts  are  pure  Greek,  as 
the  version  of  Job,  Proverbs,  and  Canticles,  in  vrhich  even 
poetical  expressions  are  introduced ;  3d.  The  rest  of  the 
version  is  of  a  mixed  character.  See  Miicke,  de  Origine 
versionis  LXX.  interpretum.  ZUllich,  1789. 

III.  Since,  then,  this  style  was  adopted,  as 
we  have  before  shown,  by  the  inspired  writers 
of  the  New  Testament,  it  follows  of  course,  as 
the  most  learned  interpreters  have  always  held, 
that  the  study  of  the  Septuagint  is  of  the  great- 
est use  in  determinino^  the  usag^e  of  lang-uasre 
in  the  New  Testament.  See  especially  Pear- 
son's Preface  to  the  Cambridge  edition,  and 
that  of  Grabe,  and  also  Caiyzov's  Crit.  Sac.  p. 
547.g 

s  Together  with  Biel,  Schleusner,  Paulus.  Beckhaus,  and 
others.  See  Bretschneider''s  Exc.  II.  ad  Jes.  Siracidem. 
Ratisbon,  1806,  p.  709,  seq. 

IV.  The  more  recent  and  learned  interpre- 
ters have  therefore  judged  the  use  of  this  ver- 
sion most  necessary  to  the  illustration  of  the 
phraseology  of  the  New  Testament;  nor  was 
that  phraseology  ever  rightly  explained,  until 
light  was  thrown  upon  it  from  this  quarter. 
In  this  application  of  the  Septuagint,   Grotius 


150  SEPTUAGINT  VERSION,  AND  THE 

led  the  way,  being"  the  first  who  brought  the 
necessary  diligence  and  learning  to  the  task.*^ 

^  The  Fathers  did  not  use  the  Septuagint  in  illustrating 
the  New  Testament,  because  they  were  generally  ignorant 
of  Hebrew.  Even  Melancthon and  Camerarhishave  seldom 
availed  themselves  of  its  assistance.  Next  to  Grotius  we 
may  class  Beachenius  Observ.  in  N.  T.  ex  LXX.  [The 
reader  will  obsei've,  that  a  mere  knowledge  of  Greek  will 
not  enable  the  student  to  use  the  Septuagint  for  hermeneu- 
tical  purposes.  His  object  ought  to  be  to  discover  the  He- 
braisms in  the  New  Testament,  and  to  explain  them  by 
finding  what  Hebrew  expressions  are  rendered  by  the  same 
Greek  expressions  in  the  Septuagint ;  and  this  of  course 
cannot  be  done  without  a  competent  knowledge  of  He- 
brew.] 

V.  Much  help  may  also  be  derived  from  those 
writers  who  have  illustrated  the  Hebraisms  of 
the  New  Testament,*  by  the  aid  of  this  ver- 
sion ;  sometimes  by  producing  examples  to 
show  how  a  particular  phrase  would  be  given 
in  the  Hebrew;  and  sometimes  by  noticing 
the  various  ways  in  which  a  Hebrew  word  is 
rendered,  in  order  to  show  what  is  the  pure 
Greek  corresponding  to  a  Hebraistic  word ; 
the  latter,  however,  has  been  done  less  fre- 
quently than  might  have  been  wished.  As, 
however,  these  writers  have  proceeded  rather 
by  example  than  precept,  and  have  thereby 
led  their  followers  into  considerable  errors,  it 


FRAGMENTS  OF  AOUILA,  SYMMACHUS,  &C.      151 

seems  expedient  to  reduce  the  subject  to  a  few 
perspicuous  rules,  and  so  to  render  the  use  of 
this  version  more  easy  and  definite. 


'  As  Wysse  in  his  Dialectologia  Sacra.  Vorstius  is  fuller, 
but  Leusden  more  compendious  ;  both  of  their  works  have 
been  edited  by  Fischer.  [The  Title  of  Vorsfs  book  is, 
Johannis  Vorstii  Commentarius  de  Hebraismis  N.  T.  seu 
philologia  sacra.  That  of  Leusden' s,  Joh.  Leusdeni  de  Dialec- 
tis  N.  T.  singulatim  de  ejus  Hebraismis,  libellus  singularis, 
denuo  edidit,  J.  F.  Fischer.  Leipzig,  1754  and  1792. 

VI.  We  must,  in  the  first  place,  premise  a 
few  grammatical  observations,  on  the  princi- 
ples according  to  which  the  Greek  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint  imitates  the  original  Hebrew ;  and 
from  these  we  shall  proceed  to  draw  rules  and 
limitations  by  which  the  use  of  this  version 
may  be  properly  directed. 

VII.  The  most  important  observations  are 
these.  First,  whatever  Greek  word  corres- 
ponded etymologically  to  a  Hebrew  word,  or 
expressed  its  primary  signification,  was  em- 
ployed by  the  translators  to  express,  not  merely 
that  signification,  but  also  all  tropical  significa- 
tions of  the  same  word.  Thus,  the  primary 
or  proper  use  of  the  words  p*»"irT.  /Tll^j  rS^12i 
T\\r\'^^  ir\1^  N'^pj    is   expressed  by  r/.'ks^aG^at, 


152  SEPTUAGINT  VERSION,  AND  THE 

and  so  they  are  rendered.  But  besides  this, 
these  Greek  words  and  their  conjugates  are 
used  in  the  Septuagint  to  express  the  corres- 
ponding Hebrew  words  in  all  their  varieties  of 
tropical  application ;  and  that  in  a  way  quite 
irreconcileable  with  the  usages  of  the  Greek 
language.^ 


^  To  these  we  may  add,  "j^T  '^vord,  tropically  fhi7ig,  in 
this  sense  p*}f/,a.  is  to  be  understood  Matt.  iv.  4,  Luke  i.  37. 
J-)'*")^  a  treaty,  tropically,  a  system  of  revealed  religion,  ha- 
^TiKTi.  "^X^  a  secret,  tropically,  "profound  wisdom,  fMMrrn^tov. 
[For  the  manner  in  which  these  words  are  used,  the  reader 
will  find  full  information,  by  consulting  Schleusner^ s  The- 
saurus, which  ought  to  be  in  the  library  of  every  biblical 
student ;  or,  if  he  chooses  to  follow  the  advice  of  Michaelis, 
he  may,  by  the  aid  of  Trommius''  Concordance,  investigate 
the  requisite  passages  for  himself.  See  Michaelis'  Introd. 
i.  177.] 

VIII.  Secondly,  when  Hebrew  words  have 
many  different  meanings,  wliich  cannot  be  well 
explained  by  tropical  transference,  nor  derived 
from  the  primary  signification,  as  D'^DJl  ''^^^s^os, 
oi'/.aiog,  h7M^'W  the  corresponding  Greek  words 
are  used  with  the  same  latitude  of  jiermutation. 
Gataker  has  been  very  diligent  in  the  elucida- 
tion of  this  class  of  words,  as  Vorstius  has  with 
respect  to  those  mentioned  before. 


FRAGMENTS  OF  AOUILA,  SYMMACHUS,  &C.      153 

^  So  |j^J  is  either  to  give  or  to  place;  hence  rtdivut 
and  'hiVova.i  are  used  alternatively  in  the  N.  T.  as  in  John 
X.  11.  '^l^v^riv  Tifivut:  ^"^"JJ,  either  benefactor  oy  prince y 
hence  ivi^yirri?,  prince,  Luke  xxii.  25. 

IX.  In  such  cases  the  Septuagint  uses  one 
Greek  word  with  the  same  variety  of  signifi- 
cations :  thus,  since  /J^a^rv^iov  answers  to  nTfJ? 
or  JlXiy,  and  since  the  Hebrew  word  is  used 
for  law  or  doctrine,  therefore  also  i-'Morb^m 
Xoiffrov  is  used  for  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  and 
fjMPTu^sTv  for  to  teach.  In  the  same  way,  v6/jjog 
like  r\li)r\  is  used  not  only  for  laic^  as  in  pure 
Greek  writers,  but  also  for  revealed  religion  in 
general,  and  for  its  particular  parts,  as,  for 
example,  its  promises.  Ignorance  of  this  prin- 
ciple has  led  commentators  into  the  most 
strange  and  involved  attempts  at  explanation  ; 
see  Vitringah  Obs.  iii.  1.  As  another  example, 
we  may  observe,  that  the  Hebrew  prefix  3 
answers  properly,  or  nearly,  to  the  Greek  b : 
consequently  sv  is  used  in  the  Septuagint,  with 
all  the  latitude  of  signification  which  this  pre- 
fix possesses  in  Hebrew.  Ignorance  of  this 
particular  point  has  led  interpreters  into  ab- 
surd and  forced  renderings.™ 

""  We  may  give  as  examples,  Iv  X^iittm  uvm  to  be  a 
Christian  :  Iv    a,/u,a^Tixts  KvroSvriffKuv,  to   die   laden  with  sin. 


154  SEPTUAGINT  VERSION,  AND  THE 

Nor  must  we  omit  to  observe,  that  in  the  New  Testament 
Iv  and  lis  are  used  interchangeably,  as  ^  and  ^  in  Hebrew. 
[It  appears  more  suitable  to  the  present  enquiry  to  examine, 
what  is  done  in  the  Septuagint,  than  what  is  done  in  the 
New  Testament.  There  h  will  be  found  expressing  all 
the  following,  in,  to,  loith,  when,  near,  for,  on  account  of, 
by,  against.  An  examination  of  the  passages  in  which  it 
is  thus  used,  will,  probably,  shew,  that  h  a,[ji,a.^7ta.i;  icrod- 
vmKUi  means  rather  to  die  on  account  of  sin,  than  laden 
with  sin.     Deut.  xxiv.  10,  and  Hosea  xii.  12.] 


X.  Greek  words  sometimes  occur  in  the 
Septuagint,  the  reason  for  the  choice  of  which 
it  is  impossible  for  us  to  discover,  either  from 
Greek  or  Hebrew  usage.  In  these  cases,  ac- 
cording to  Le  Dieu  and  others,  the  Chaidee  or 
Arabic  usage  has  been  followed,  or  the  primary 
meaning  of  the  word,  which  has  been  lost  in 
Hebrew,  remains  in  Chaidee  or  Arabic."  Thus 
"1/13  is  rendered  avyK^ivnv  instead  of  s^,u^rivsv£iv, 
or  ImXvuv,  and  this  signification,  which  is  per- 
haps the  primary  one,  or  existed  in  the  Chaidee 
or  Arabic,  has  been  introduced  into  the  New 
Testament,  (1  Cor.  ii.  ]3.) 


"  This  seldom  happens.  Compare,  however,  Rom.  xi.  9. 
with  Isaiah  xxix.  10.  where  nDTl/l'  ^^^P  *^^^J0)  is  ren- 
dered by  the  LXX.  xaravw^/,-,  compunctio.  This  is  taken 
from  the  Arabic  use  of  Q'7"l»  to  sew  or  prick.  It  is  a  fa- 
miliar phi-ase  among  the  Arabians,  "  sleep  has  sewed  toge- 


FRAGMENTS  OF  AQUILA,  SYMMACHUS,  &C.       155 

ther  my  eyes."  See  Michaelis  Supplem.  p.  449.  And 
Chrestomachia,  Arab.  p.  66.  Lennep,  however,  gives  an- 
other view  of  the  word,  tracing  it  from  vuti>  to  nod,  hence 
vt/o-ra^w  and  KXToivvlis  sleep.  [We  may  observe,  that  in  some 
such  cases,  it  is  probable  the  LXX.  had  a  different  reading 
from  that  which  we  now  possess  ;  and  in  others,  it  is  clear 
they  introduced  glosses  expressing  the  current  opinion  of 
their  own  time,  rather  than  the  literal  meaning  of  the 
passage.  Thus,  in  Deut.  xxxii.  8.  □'^Q^  J1^23  3iJ"' 
/Xnti^*^  "'JH  *1S)DQ7  ^^  rendered  sVtjjo-sv  o^ia,  iSvm  Kara,  u,^t6~ 
fjLov  ayyixuv  6iou;  whereas  the  two  last  words  ought  to 
have  been,  as  they  are  rendered  by  Aquila  and  Symmachus, 
i/i&iv  'Itr^oc'/iX.  This  version  is  evidently  taken  from  (the 
popular  notion  of  tutelary  angels  presiding  over  different 
nations.     See  Mori  Acroases,  Ed.  Eichstadt.  ii.  71- 1 


XI.  Sometimes,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Sep- 
tuagint  translators  render  Hebrew  forms,  by 
pure  Greek  forms,  expressive  of  the  sense  ; 
thus  rSDi^  [properly  truth'],  is  rendered  sXs^j/xo- 
(fm,  and  J1DN  ^"^K  by  dya^og :  and  in  the  same 
way  D'^'inhi  is  rendered  not  only  Uxc^rog,  but 
also  s';r/w!/ ;  and  with  D^^''^T  not  only  ev  Ic-xdraig 
Ti/Ms^aig,  but  also  fJi'srd  ravra.  It  is  unnecessary 
to  mention  Hebraisms  in  the  construction,  and 
others  which  do  not  affect  the  sense ;  as  femi- 
nines  for  neuters,  and  the  like.° 

°  As  for  example  in  Matt.  xxi.  42,  ^av[/.affT'/i  for  9-avf/.a<rTov. 
We  may  add  this  remark,  that  sometimes  the  Hebraisms 
are  only  partly  explained,  as  in  Gen.  xix.  21,  Q1J3  ^^lt^J 


156  SEPTUAGINT  VERSION,  AND  THE 

is  rendered  9-civf/.i>i^it  'roocrurov,  which  is  scarcely  Greek ;  but 
from  this  we  may  derive  the  formula  in  the  N.  T.  kct/x^dvuv 
T^oa-uTov.  [This  expression  may  more  properly  be  explained 
by  the  well  known  Hebraism,  that  the  several  parts  of  the 
body  are  used  to  express  merely  the  man  to  whom  they  be- 
long ;  thus  Q'*7^T  \^f2  ^^  simply  from  him.  See  Ernesti's 
Instit.  Bib.  Cab.  I.  p.  92,  93.] 

XII.  These  observations  then  ought  to  be 
familiar  to  our  minds,  so  as  to  be  ready  for 
application,  both  generally,  and  especially  when 
we  have  to  consider  words  of  frequent  recur- 
rence in  the  sacred  books,  and  such  as  we  may 
style  dogmatic  terms.  And  this  familiarity  we 
may  best  attain,  by  always  reading  the  Greek 
of  the  Septuagint  together  with  the  Hebrew 
original,  and  by  comparing  the  Greek  of  one 
passage  with  that  of  another  where  the  same 
Hebrew  word  occurs :  keeping  at  the  same 
time  these  general  observations  in  view,  that 
guided  by  them  w^e  may  attain  a  knowledge  of 
the  usages  of  that  version  with  respect  to  each 
particular  word.P 

•'  [The  translator  understands  Ernesti  to  mean,  that  the 
observations  in  the  preceding  paragraphs  will  enable  us  to 
classify  for  future  use,  the  several  particles  of  information 
which  we  may  derive  from  the  comparisons  just  recom- 
mended.] 

XIII.  Our  application  of  the    Septuagint 


FRAGMENTS  OF  AOUILA,  SYMMACHUS,  &C.      157 

version  to  the  elucidation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, by  the  aid  of  these  observations,  ought 
to  be  guided  by  the  following  rules.     First, 
when  we  meet  with  any  thing  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament which  is  bad  Greek,  and  which  we  know 
to  be  so  from  our  previous  acquaintance  with 
the  genius  and  analogy  of  the  Greek  language, 
and  from  the  impossibility  of  reconciling  the 
genuine  Greek  signification  of  some  particular 
word,  with  the  general  sense  of  the  passage, 
then  we  must  have  recourse  to  the  Septuagint, 
and  examine  what  is  the  Hebrew  word  which 
they  render  by  this   Greek  word,  and  thus, 
from  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew,  we  may  deter- 
mine the  signification  of  the  Greek :   as  in  the 
words   yCkr^f^ii,  hXcyri  and   its   conjugates,    and 
f/^oyiXaXog,  Mark  vii.  32,  answering  to  the  He- 
brew Cbi^,  dumb.     Isaiah  xxxv,  6.^     In  this, 
however,  we  must  be  careful  to  attain  the  real 
force  and  signification  of  the  Hebrew  word, 
and  not  satisfy  ourselves  with  the  renderings 
of  the  ordinary  lexicons,  the  Latin  of  w^iich 
is  frequently  Hebraistic,  and  often  borrowed 
etymologically  from  this  very  version ;  in  such 
cases,  of  course,  they  can  do  us  no  good,  and 
may  lead  us  into  great  errors.     Students  ought, 
therefore,  to  make  themselves  familiar  with  the 
best  treatises  on  Hebraisms,  and  endeavour  to 


158  SEPTUAGINT  VERSION,  AND  THE 

obtain  a  clear  and  accurate  knowledge  of  the 
genius  and  peculiarities  of  that  language. 


1  fAoyiXiXoi  cannot  be  rendered  speaking  with  difficulty^ 
for  those  who  are  naturally  deaf,  are  consequently  dumb. 
By  an  examination  of  the  passage  quoted,  it  appears  that 
fjuayiXa.Xoi  isused  for  tt.Xa.Xoi.  [The  substance  of  this  rule  is 
thus  briefly  given  by  IMorus  ;  the  Hebraisms  of  the  N.  T. 
are  to  be  compared  with  the  Hebrew,  not  arbitrarily,  that 
is,  not  according  to  our  own  general  knowledge  of  Hebrew, 
but  by  the  aid  and  through  the  medium  of  the  Septuagint.] 


XIV.  Secondly,  whenever  we  find  any  thing 
in  the  Septuagint  expressed  in  pure  Greek, 
which,  as  has  been  observed,  is  sometimes  the 
case,  we  must  apply  this  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  passages  in  which,  judging  from  the 
genius  of  the  Greek  language,  it  appears  that 
the  Hebrew  has  been  rendered  verbatim  into 
Greek.  In  such  cases,  the  best  plan  is  to  re- 
translate the  Greek  verbatim  into  Hebrew. 
Thus,  if  in  1  Cor.  xv.  54,  you  render  hg  vTytog 
by  the  Hebrew  TOi'?,  and  observe  that  this 
is  rendered  by  the  LXX.  hg  rsXog,  dia-rravrbg,  sig 
Tov  diojm,  y^^ovov  'ttoXvv,  as  well  as  s/g  vTxog,  you  will 
discover  the  true  sense.  Such  instances  in 
that  version  ought,  therefore,  to  be  carefully 
noted,  so  as  to  be  ready  for  application  when- 
ever an  occasion  is  ofTered.'^ 


FRAGMENTS  OF  AOUILA,  SYMMACHUS,  &C.     159 

"■  In  the  same  way  we  shall  find  that  Iv  l^x.^roii?  v/^i^uts 
of  the  N.  T.  corresponds  to  the  f/,iTa.  ravra  of  the  Septuagint. 
See  §  xi. 

XV.  And  even  in  pure  Greek  expressions, 
common  to  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  it 
will  be  useful  to  examine  the  corresponding 
Hebrew  in  the  Old  Testament ;  lest  we  should 
be  entirely  misled,  or  at  least  fail  of  perceiving 
the  full  sense  of  the  passage.  For  the  LXX. 
often  translate  indefinitely,  they  give  genus 
for  species,  antecedent  for  consequent,  and  the 
like.  Thus,  they  render  niil''  ilN  "]7»inn,  by 
svTj^sffrriffi  ruj  %uj,  Gen.  v.  24,  vi.  9,  putting  the 
consequent  for  the  antecedent;  and  this  has 
been  retained  by  the  Apostle,  Heb.  xi.  5.® 

^  f^ovoyivhs,  John  i.  14.  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew  V^^ 
■^1^**  which  the  LXX.  render,  Gen.  xxii.  2.  iios  uyec^viTos 
[This  ought  evidently  to  be  given  as  an  illustration  of  § 
14.  Ernesti's  criticism  would  have  been  clearer,  had  he 
said,  that  in  the  example  produced,  the  LXX.  had  given 
the  effect  for  the  cause ;  Enoch's  walking  with  God  was 
the  cause,  his  pleasing  God  was  the  effect.] 

XVI.  Both  in  the  Septuagint  and  in  the 
Greek  Testament,  there  are  many  forms  which 
appear  to  be  pure  Greek,  and  which  still  re- 
quire to  be  interpreted  from  the  Hebrew. 
Thus,  in  Eph.  iv.  9,  Ps.  Ixii.  9,  %aru)-ara /ms^t^ 


160  SEPTUAGINT  VERSION,  AND  THE 

rrig  y^g,  can  be  understood  only  by  comparing 
it  with  the  Hebrew  Y"1^^  nvnnn.  This  class 
of  texts,  and  they  are  almost  innumerable,  re- 
quire particular  care,  and  often  escape  the  in- 
telligence of  interpreters.  See  Ernesti's  Inst. 
Bib.  Cab.  vol.  i.  p.  103,  104.  The  student 
ought,  therefore,  to  be  peculiarly  diligent  in 
this  branch  of  enquiry,  so  as  always  to  have 
his  results  ready  for  application.' 

*  The  labours  of  Biel  and  Schleusner  cannot  be  too  highly 
praised  ;  and  the  Biblical  student  cannot  dispense  with  their 
great  work  Novus  Thesaurus  Phil.  Crit.  &c.  Lips.  1820. 
[Of  the  class  mentioned  in  this  §  1,  are  ti  a^irh  rov  hou,  ryi^i7t 
Tov  x'oyov  ToZ  hov,  ok'ox.Xri^o;.  In  these  the  expression  is  pure 
Greek,  but  the  sense  is  Hebraistic.  For  a^irvi  ^ioZ  means, 
not,  as  we  should  suppose,  the  moral  perfections  of  God, 
but  specifically  his  mercy  ;  and  this  specific  sense  of  a^irh 
is  to  be  taken  in  1  Pet.  xi.  9,  rno'Jv  tov  Xoyov,  accord- 
ing to  Greek  usage,  signifies  to  watch  a  person's  words 
in  a  bad  sense ;  but  in  the  Septuagint,  ryiozTv  is  used  for 
the  Hebrew  T)Qti^,  to  attend  to  or  obey.  'OXoxX'/ioo;  which 
in  its  Greek  usage  means  complete,  is  used  in  the  Septuagint 
for  the  Hebrew  Q''^/l,  and  signifies,  when  applied  to  a  man, 
pure  from  sin  ;  and  in  this  sense  it  is  used  also  in  the  N.  T. 
The  words  3£;^;£<r^a/,  and  -r^oa-Xecf^Sdvicr^cn.  when  compared 
with  the  Hebrew  f\Ty},  will  be  found  to  mean  to  treat 
with  kindness.  Upon  this  most  important  subject,  the  stu- 
dent will  do  well  to  consult  the  works  of  Fischer,  his  tracts 
De  Versionibus  Graecis,  V.  T.,  &c.  Lips.  1770,  1704,  and 
Prohisiones  de  Vitiis  Lex.  N.  T.  Lips.  1798.] 

XVII.   Whenever  we  are  at  a  loss  in  ques- 


FRAGMENTS  OF  AOUILA,  SY3I3IACHUS,  &C.      161 

tions  of  this  kind,  it  will  be  serviceable  to  con- 
sult an    index  of  this   version,  that  we  may- 
discover  to  what   Hebrew  word  each   Greek 
word  corresponds,   and    thence    derive    what- 
ever light  may  be  afforded  by  the  comparison; 
and  for  this  purpose   we   may  use  the  Con- 
cordances of  Kircher  or   Trommius.^      But,  in 
doing  this,  much  caution  must  be  used,  lest 
either  by  an   affectation   or  an   ignorance   of 
Hebraisms,  or  being  misled  by  the  vagueness 
with  which  the  LXX.  sometimes  translate,  we 
fall  into  error.    Dan.  Heinsius^  has  erred  widely 
in  this  way,  and  has,* on  that  account,   been 
justly    reprehended  by  Salmasius   in   his    De 
Foen.  Trapezit,  p.  805.     In  the  next  place,  we 
must  be  careful  not  to  be  misled  by  the  blunders 
of  these  Concordances,  which   are  many  and 
great.     This  is  especially  likely  to  happen  to 
those    who   use  the  work  of  Kircher,    whose 
Latin  renderings  are  all  taken  from  the  ver- 
sion oiPagninus;  and  has  happened  to  Heinsius, 
and  to  Calovius  in  considering  the  words  ava- 
^s/^t-a  and  am^'/j/xa,   1  Cor.  xii.  4.     Thirdly,  we 
must  be  careful,  in  cases  where  the  LXX.  had 
a  different  Hebrew  reading  from   that  which 
we  possess,  not  to   interpret  their  rendering 
according  to  our  present  text,  and  thereby  to 
affix  a  wrong  sense   to  the   Greek  word,   as 

M 


162  SEPTUAGINT  VERSION,  AND  THE 

Pearson  has  done  on  Heb.  x.  28.  And  finally, 
we  must  not  follow  the  LXX.  in  their  erro- 
neous renderings  of  Hebrew  words,  of  which 
many  instances  may  be  found  ;  see  my  Disp. 
de  Diffic.  Interp.  Gram.  N.  T.  §  17,  18,  19. 
These  dangers  would  in  a  great  degree  be 
obviated,  if  any  person,  sufficiently  acquainted 
with  Greek,  Hebrew,  and  criticism  in  general, 
familiar  also  with  the  several  principles  and 
rules  above  laid  down,  would  compose  a  lexi- 
con of  the  Septuagint  version,  as  it  appears 
from  his  Prsef.  in  Prseterita,  that  Drusius  had 
the  intention  of  doing.^ 

"  Kircher  published  his  Concordance  in  quarto,  1607. 
He  placed  the  Hebrew  words  first,  and  added  a  Greek  in- 
dex, which  is  a  very  inconvenient  foi*m.  Trommius,  whose 
Concordance  was  published  in  folio  1717,  put  the  Greek 
first,  and  added  a  Hebrew  index.  This  is  much  superior 
to  Kircher's,  who  used  WecheVs  edition  of  the  Septuagint 
in  which  there  are  numerous  errors. 

*  Heinsius,  using  Pagninus''  Hebrew  Lexicon,  which  is  mere- 
ly etymological,  renders  H^rov  iTiova-iov,  as  if  "1^,"^/^  QH/ 
were />amsm*/a;i*,  deriving  "T^^/^  from "TlQf7,  and  that  again 
falsely  from  "70^7  to  stand.  Thus  a  good  rendering  is  support- 
ed by  futile  arguments.  [T^Q/1  is  more  probably  derived, 
(unless  1Q/1  be  considered  as  a  distinct  root)  from  "1*TQ  ^^ 
which  it  is  referred  by  Simon  and  Fichfiorn.] 

'  See  note  on  §  16. 

XVIII.   Whoever  will  keep   these  ruk-s   in 


FRAGMENTS  OF  AQUILA,  SYMMACHUS,  &C.      163 

mind,  and  add  thereto  private  application,  and 
attention  to  the  lectures  of  ^ood  interpreters, 
may  derive  great  use  from  the  Septuagint  ver- 
sion ;  the  assistance  to  be  derived  from  which 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament, 
has,  as  yet,  by  no  means  been  exhausted. 

XIX.  This  version  may  also  be  applied  to 
other  uses  besides  those  already  mentioned. 
It  may  be  very  serviceable  in  comparing  pas- 
sages from  the  Old  Testament  which  are  quot- 
ed in  the  New ;  nor  is  its  critical  use  to  be 
overlooked  in  the  judgment  and  choice  of  va- 
rious readings.  And,  thirdly,  it  throws  much 
light  on  the  commentaries  of  the  fathers,  which 
generally  depend  upon  this  version. 

XX.  For  it  is  clear,  that  the  inspired  writers 
of  the  New  Testament  sometimes  quoted  from 
the  Septuagint  version  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Sometimes,  indeed,  they  appear  to  have  quot- 
ed from  the  Hebrew,  rendering  it  word  for 
word  into  Greek,  as  any  of  us  might  do  at  the 
present  day.  That  they  have  thus  translated, 
appears  from  many  passages  in  which  they 
agree  with  the  Hebrew  text,  in  opposition  to 
the  Greek,  as  Matt.  viii.  17,  from  Is.  liii.  4, 
and  John  xix.  37,  from  Zech.  xii.  10.  In 
many  passages,  however,  it  is  clear,  that  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  have   quoted 


164  SEPTUAGINT  VERSION,  AND  THE 

from  the  Septuagint,  in  those,  namely,  where 
they  agree  with  it  in  its  departures  from  the 
Hebrew.  And  these  discrepancies  often  affect 
the  sense,  and  are  such,  that  we  can  hard- 
ly conceive  them  to  have  been  made  inde- 
pendently by  two  different  translators ;  such, 
for  example,  are  Heb.  x.  38;  xi.  21.  In  such 
passages,  if  we  assert  with  some  learned  men, 
that  the  Apostles  translated  from  the  Hebrew, 
it  must  follow,  either  that  they  have  erred  in 
the  translation,  or  that  our  Hebrew  text  has 
been  corrupted  in  these  passages,  neither  of 
which  is  probable  ;  or,  finally,  that  the  apos- 
tolic translation  has  been  removed  from  the 
text  by  copyists,  and  its  place  supplied  from 
the  Septuagint.  This  last  opinion  has  been 
held  by  some;  and  a  full  discussion  of  the  sub- 
ject will  be  found  in  Lud.  Capelli  Append. 
Crit.  Sac.  p.  443.^ 

'  The  Old  Testament  is  quoted  by  the  inspired  authors 
of  the  New,  either  literally  from  the  Hebrew  text,  or  from 
the  Septuagint,  or  from  some  other  version  now  lost,  or  from 
memory.  See  Eichhorn's,  Allg.  Bibliothek  der  Bibl.  liit. 
II.  948,  sq.,  and  Eckermaii's  SymboL-v  Theologictv.  Upon 
the  whole  we  may  observe,  that  in  that  age  quotations  were 
m  ade, 

I.  Rather  with  a  view  to  the  sense  of  the  passage  tliau  to 
the  exact  words,  so  that  much  was  occasionally  added  or 
omitted. 


FRAGMENTS  OF  AOUILA,  SYMMACHUS,  &C.     165 

2.  The  sense  of  the  passage  quoted  was  often  altered  so 
as  to  suit  the  notions  of  the  person  quoting. 

3.  Authors,  even  in  quoting  from  the  writings  of  others, 
shewed  their  own  genius. 

Peter,  Acts  ii.  25,  and  James,  lb.  xv.  16,  could  not  use  the 
Septuagint  version  at  Jerusalem,  for  Greek  was  very  un- 
popular there,  and  each  Apostle  must  have  spoken,  not  in 
Greek  but  in  Syriac.  The  passages  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment there  quoted,  must  therefore  have  been  recorded  by- 
Luke  from  memory.  [Of  these  three  methods  of  quotation, 
the  second  and  third  appear  to  the  translator  to  be  substan- 
tially the  same.  On  the  subject  of  this  chapter,  the  student 
will  do  well  to  consult  Marsh'' s  Michaelis,  I.  200,  sq.  And 
Koppe,  Excursus  I.  in  Ep.  ad  Rom.] 


XXI.  It  is  not  necessary  here  to  inquire 
very  minutely  into  the  reasons  for  this  variety 
in  the  manner  of  quoting,  and  for  the  custom 
of  quoting  the  Septuagint  version  even  where 
it  departs  from  the  Hebrew  text.  But  since 
the  whole  force  of  an  argument  in  the  New 
Testament  sometimes  depends  upon  the  word- 
ing of  the  Greek  version,  where  it  differs  from 
the  Hebrew,  not  merely  in  entire  sentences, 
but  in  particular  words,  it  will  readily  be  per- 
ceived how  necessary  an  acquaintance  with 
that  version  must  be  to  a  right  understanding 
of  the  New  Testament.^ 


^  [The  Translator  has  seldom  had  reason   to  warn  the 
reader  against  the  sentiments  of  Ernesti ;  but  in  this  chap- 


166  SEPTUAGINT  VERSION,   AND  THE 

ter  he  has  certainly  admitted  that,  which  if  allowed,  would 
go  far  to  overthrow  the  divine  authority  of  Scripture.  If 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  reaily  proved  their  doc- 
trines, not  from  the  word  of  God,  but  from  the  misrepre- 
sentations of  it  by  the  LXX.  it  would  be  verv  difficult  to 
conceive  that  in  so  doing  they  acted  under  the  influence  of 
the  Divine  Spirit.  The  learned  Michaelis  speaks  with  more 
reverence,  and  with  fuller  information  on  this  subject. 
"  Great  diffidence,"  says  he,  "  is  requisite  on  our  parts  in 
our  critical  explanation  of  the  Old  Testament,  nor  must  we 
conclude  that  an  Apostle  has  made  a  false  quotation,  be- 
cause he  has  applied  a  passage  in  the  Old  Testament,  in  a 
sense  which,  according  to  our  judgment,  it  does  not  admit. 
Our  own  ignorance  may  be  the  cause  of  the  seeming  im- 
propriety, and  having  found,  by  actual  experience,  and  a 
more  minute  investigation  of  the  subject,  that  many  pas- 
sages, which  other  critics,  as  well  as  myself,  have  taken  for 
false  quotations,  were  yet  properly  cited  by  the  Apostles, 
I  trust  that  future  critics  will  be  able  to  solve  the  doubts  in 
the  few  examples  which  remain."  Introd.  i.  210.  And 
again,  in  reference  more  particularly  to  quotations  from  the 
Septuagint,  having  examined  the  practice  of  St.  Matthew, 
he  adds,  "  With  respect  to  the  other  writers  of  the  New 
Testament,  it  is  certain  that  they  have  quoted  in  most  in- 
stances from  the  Septuagint,  even  where  the  translation 
from  the  Hebrew  is  inaccurate,  but  where  the  errors  are  of 
such  a  nature  as  not  to  weaken  the  proofs  for  which  they 
are  alleged.  This  has  been  used  as  an  argument  against 
divine  inspiration,  but  the  argument  is  without  foundation, 
for  the  proof  depends  not  on  all  the  words  of  the  quotation, 
but  simply  on  those  few  which  are  immediately  applicable  to 
the  subject ;  the  rest  are  introduced  merely  on  account  of 
the  connexion,  and  that  the  reader  might  more  easily  refer 
to  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  from  which  they 
are  taken."     But  the  reader  will  do  well  to  study  the  whole 


FRAGMENTS  OF  AgUILA,  SYMMACHLS,  kc.      167 

of  Michaelis'  chap,  v.,  sect  iii.  on  this  important  and  diffi- 
cult subject.] 


XXII.  The  Septuagint  version  has  a  cri- 
tical application,  first,  in  those  passages  which 
are  quoted  from  it.  For  in  these  the  old  ma- 
nuscripts sometimes  differ,  so  that  we  have  to 
determine  which  we  ouglit  to  follow.  In  all 
which  cases  it  cannot  be  doubted,  but  that  we 
ought  to  prefer  that  reading  which  is  found  in 
good  old  copies,  especially  if  it  contain  any- 
thing studied  or  unusual  in  the  expression. 
Thus  in  Heb.  i.  11.  the  Vulgate  reading 
gX/Js/c  ought  to  be  preferred  to  aXXags/g,  con- 
trary to  the  opinion  of  Wetstein  and  Bengel^ 
because  sX/gs/g  is  in  the  Septuagint,  from  whence 
the  whole  passage  is  taken  ;^  and  aXka^ng  has 
the  air  of  a  gloss  from  the  Latin  version  of  the 
New  Testament,  which  appears  to  have  this 
word  from  the  correction  of  Jerome  ;  although 
it  must  be  granted  that  aXXags/f  is  closer  to 
the  Hebrew  ^^H.  Cases,  however,  sometimes 
occur  where  we  must,  for  special  reasons,  re- 
ject the  authority  of  the  Septuagint:  for  in- 
stance, where  the  nature  of  the  argument  ap- 
pears to  have  required  some  change  in  the 
expression^  wliich  has  therefore  been  made 
designedly,   while    the    general    sense   of  the 


168         SEPTUAGINT  VERSION,  AND  THE 

passage  is  retained.  Thus  St.  Paul,  Heb.  x. 
5,  appears  to  have  put  cw/o-a  for  ojria  from  Ps, 
xl.  as  more  suitable  to  his  purpose  of  showing 
that  Christ  had  propitiated  the  Father  by  the 
sacrifice  of  his  body.*^ 


*•  It  oui^ht  not,  however,  to  be  omitted,  that  Grahe's  edi- 
tion has  xXXa^u;  in  Ps.  cii.  26 — 28. 

°  The  Philoxenian  version  has  Jra  in  this  passage  :  and  so 
Michaelis,  (Coll.  Crit.  de  Psalmis  praecip.  de  Christo  agen- 
tilms,  p.  358,  seq.)  thinks  it  ought  to  be  read. 


XXIII.  In  cases  where  the  authority  of 
good  manuscripts  is  equally  balanced,  and 
where  the  sense  of  the  two  readings  is  equally 
good,  we  must  determine  from  the  nature  of 
the  words.  See  ch.  vi.  §  25.  For  it  cannot 
be  doubted,  but  that  the  reading,  which  is  more 
consonant  to  the  usage  of  this  version,  and 
especially  that  reading  which,  according  to 
Greek  habits,  would  be  considered  the  harsher, 
ought  to  be  preferred.  By  the  use  of  this 
principle  corruptions  of  the  text  may  be  de- 
tected, and  the  true  reading  established.  The 
Latin  translator,  at  Acts  xv.  2,  would  not,  I 
think,  have  omitted  ?ta/  cr-j^^jr^^sw^,  as  being  too 
weak  a  word  to  be  coupled  with  tfratfswc,  had  he 
known   that  <rra(r/$,   which  he  renders  sediiw^ 


FRAGMENTS  OF  AQUILA,  SYMMACHUS,  &C.     169 

was  habitually  used  b)^  the  LXX.  in  the  milder 
sense  of  disputatio. 

XXIV.  But  in  every  critical  application  of 
the  Septuagint,  we  must  be  careful  to  use  a 
correct  edition,  formed  upon  good  manuscripts, 
so  that  we  may  not  be  misled  by  inaccuracies. 
Nay,  we  ought  to  use  several  editions,  and  to 
examine  the  various  readings.  Thus,  in  2 
Cor.  xiii.  1,  it  would  be  very  rash  to  displace 
ffTcx^Tjffsrai  for  crrtCiroLi,  which  is  found  at  Deut. 
xix.  15,  in  the  Roman  edition  of  the  Septua- 
gint, and  in  those  editions  which  follow  the 
Roman  ;  although  (Srn<izrat  may  be  taken  in  a 
passive  sense  :  for  it  will  be  found  that  (rra^j^cs- 
rat  is  the  reading  in  the  editions  of  Aldus  and 
Grahe. 

XXV.  Although  the  first  place  is  to  be 
given  to  the  Septuagint  version ;  yet  the  other 
ancient  Greek  translations  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, especially  those  of  Aquila  and  Symma- 
chiis,  are  not  to  be  neglected.  The  first  of 
these  w^as  collected  from  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers,  especially  Jerome,  and  the  Catenae, 
by  P.  Morinus,  assisted,  as  he  informs  us  in  his 
Ep.  31,  hj  Ant,  Agellius ;  and  was  edited  by 
Flaminius  Nohilius  in  the  Biblia  Grseca,  at 
Rome.  Hence,  it  was  reprinted  in  several 
editions,  and  also  separately  by  Drusius  ;  and 


170  SEPTUAGINT  VERSION,   AND  THE 

afterwards  in  a  form  more  adapted  to  use,  but 
considerably  increased  by  collections  from  the 
manuscript  commentaries  of  EuseMus,  Proco- 
pius,  &c.  in  the  Hexaplorum  Origenianorum 
Reliquiae,  by  Mojitfancon,  Paris  1713,  together 
with  a  Greek  and  Hebrew  Lexicon  :  which 
work  was  condensed  and  augmented  by  Bahrdtj 
Lips.  1769.^  Blanchinus  promised  additional 
supplements  from  the  Codex  Chisianus,  but 
was  prevented  by  death. 

**  Theodotion  generally  agrees  with  the  LXX.,  conse- 
quently his  version  is  of  less  importance.  But  concerning 
this  and  the  other  fragments  of  the  Hexapla,  see  Eichhorn's 
Einleitung,  T.  i.  ed.  3,  p.  355,  seq. 

XXVI.  Aquila^  in  conformity  with  the  spirit 
of  the  Jews,  renders  every  Hebrew  word  by 
the  nearest  corresponding  Greek  word,  whence 
he  has  been  said  to  translate  xar'  dxpi[3iiav,  and 
his  version  has  been  most  highly  approved  of 
by  the  Jews,  who  call  it  the  Hebrew  veritij^  as 
if  in  reading  it,  they  were  reading  the  Hebrew 
text  itself.  Christians  have  formed  nearly  the 
same  judgment;  and  hence,  when  the  Greek 
Fathers  speak  of  the  Hebrew,  they  must  be 
understood  as  referring  to  this  version. 

XXV H.  This  version  may  therefore  be  of 
use   to   us    in   determining  to   what    Hebrew 


FRAGMENTS  OF   AOUILA,  SYMMACHUS,  &C.      171 

word  any  Greek  word,  respecting  which  we 
are  at  a  loss,  corresponds ;  and  thence,  what 
sis'nification  it  has  in  the  Hebrew-Greek  idiom. 
Thus  we  find,  that  Aquila  uses  xavwv  to  ex- 
press p  a  string  for  measuring  ;  and  this  fact 
we  may  use  for  ilhistrating  the  meaning  of  xavovog 
in  2  Cor.  x.  13. 

XXVIII.  Symrnachus,  on  the  other  hand, 
as  the  ancients  testify,  and  as  appears  also 
from  the  frajirments  of  his  version  which  re- 
main,  studied  to  maintain  a  pure  Greek  style. 
For  the  exceptions  which  occur  in  his  version 
are  to  be  attributed  to  the  transcribers  who 
have  inserted  them  from  Aquila^  or  from  some 
other  source,  just  as  in  Aquila  we  find  some 
interpolations  from  Symmaclius.  For  this  pu- 
rity of  style  he  is  highly  praised  by  Jerome  and 
Theodore^  and  has  been,  to  the  same  degree, 
unpopular  among  his  own  countrymen,  who 
considered  the  adoption  of  such  a  style  dero- 
gatory to  the  dignity  of  the  divine  oracles. 
See  Thiemii  Disp.  de  Puritate  Symmachi.^ 

**  The  learned  may  here  consider,  whether  in  the  ehicida- 
tion  of  the  New  Testament  from  the  ancient  Hellenistic 
writings,  any  value  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  Nova  V.  T. 
versio  Grceca  Veneta^  published  by  Villoison  at  Strasburg 
1784,  and  by  me  ( Ammon)  at  Erlangen,  1790,  either  in 
determining  the  method    in   which  Hebrew  notions  were 


172         SEPTUAGINT  VERSION,  AND  THE 

wont  to  be  expressed  in  Greek,  which  is  a  great  help  to  ac- 
curate  interpretation;  or  in  the  explanation  of  particular 
words  and  forms :  as,  for  example,  in  the  word  HJlIi^Qj  7*^0?, 
which  the  author  of  this  version  has  properly  rendered 
^oKo;  :  or  in  iKvivuv,  John  v.  13,  by  which  he  renders  HJ!}, 
Deut.  xxxi.  18.  [The  etymological  meaning  of  TMlVi2 
from  the  root  HJlti^j  ^^  ^  symposium  or  meeting  to  drink  to- 
gether, hence,  any  festive  meeting.  The  translator  cannot 
find  that  Soxaj  ever  has  this  meaning,  though  loxri  from 
di;^ouat  has.] 

XXIX.  From  what  has  been  said,  it  will 
appear  that  these  fragments  are  of  use,  in  de- 
termining the  sense  of  Hebraistic  words  and 
idioms  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  prevent- 
ing us  from  giving  a  wrong  interpretation  to 
Hebraizing  Greek  expressions.  Thus,  Sym- 
maehus  renders  by  ivioysfflavy  the  word  which 
the  LXX.  render  avra'-rodom,  Ps.  ciii.  *2,  follow- 
ing the  etymology  of  the  Hebrew  b^'D^ ;  which 
may  mean  payment^  but  is  also  applied  to  be- 
nefits derived  from  God,  without  the  implica- 
tion of  previous  merit.  See  Gen.  xv.  2.  And 
even  if  it  be  not  easy  to  point  out  their  prac- 
tical use  in  particular  passages,  still  they  are 
useful  in  teaching  generally  the  usus  loqiiendi 
of  the  New  Testament,  not  merely  in  single 
words,  but  also  in  idioms  differing  from  pure 
Greek  construction.  But  on  this  subject  the 
reader   will  do  well  to  study  J.  F.  Fischer's 


FRAGMENTS  OF  AOUILA,  SYMMACHUS,  &C.       173 

Prolusiones  de  Interpretibus  V.  T.,  &c.,  Lips. 
177-2.^ 

*^[This  may  be  a  proper  place  for  mtroducing  a  short  ac- 
count of  the  history  of  these  versions.  Their  preservation 
then  is  in  a  great  measure  due  to  Origen,  who,  in  his  Hex- 
apluy  pubhshed  the  Old  Testament  in  six  parallel  columns. 
The  first  contained  the  Hebrew  text  in  its  proper  character; 
the  second,  the  same  text  in  Greek  characters  ;  the  third, 
the  version  of  Aquila  ;  the  fourth,  that  of  Symmachus  ;  the 
fifth,  the  Septuagint ;  and  the  sixth,  the  version  of  Theo- 
dotion.  Eichstadt,  however,  referring  to  Eusebius  (H.  E. 
vi.  16,)  and  Jerome  (in  Titum,  iii.)  is  of  opinion  that  the 
collections  of  Origen  were  named  from  the  number  of  Greek 
versions,  not  counting  the  Hebrew;  that  copies  which  con- 
tained only  the  four  above  mentioned  versions  were  called 
Tetraj)la  ;  while  others,  containing  these  together  with  two 
others,  now  lost,  were  called  Hexapla ;  and  that  later 
writers,  adding  the  two  Hebrew  columns  to  the  calculation, 
called  the  former  of  these  Hexaplay  the  latter  Octapla. 
Of  these  collections  no  copies  remained  at  the  restoration  of 
literature,  but  all  the  fragments  which  could  be  collected 
from  the  writings  of  the  Greek  fathers  and  other  sources, 
were  digested  and  published  by  B.  Montfaucon  nnder  the 
title,  Hexaplorum  Origenis  quse  supersunt,  multis  partibus 
auctiora  quam  a  Flaminio  Nobilio  et  Johanne  Drusio  edita 
fuerant ;  ex  manuscriptis  et  ex  libris  editis  emit  et  notis 
illustravit  Bernardus  de  Montfaucon,  Paris,  1714,  II  tom. 
fol.  This  work,  with  many  omissions,  and  some  unimportant 
additions,  has  been  edited  by  Bahrdt,  (Lips.  1708-60)  ;  but 
his  edition  derives  its  value  chiefly  from  the  rarity  and  ex- 
pensiveness  of  JMontfaucon's.] 


174  THE  USE  OF  WORKS 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

ON  THE  USE  OF  WORKS  WRITTEN  BY  JEWS. 

I.  Since  there  are  words,  forms,  and  even 
sentences,  in  the  New  Testament,  which  are 
foreign  to  the  usage  of  the  Greek  language, 
and  yet  cannot  be  explained  by  any  Hebraisms 
found  in  the  Old  Testament,  or  in  the  Alex- 
andrine, [or  other  Greek  versions] ;  it  follow^s, 
that  we  must  look  for  their  origin  in  the  Syro- 
Chaldaic,  which  prevailed  in  Palestine  in  the 
Apostolic  age ;  and  which  differed  materially 
from  Hebrew,  in  treating  either  of  secular  or 
of  religious  subjects.^ 

K  The  writings  of  Jews  are  useful  in  two  ways,  1st,  for 
the  explanation  of  rites,  customs,  and  Jewish  antiquities, 
as  also  of  peculiar  opinions,  such  as  those  respecting  Satan, 
the  Angels,  the  Messiah  and  his  forerunners,  the  Sabbath, 
and  God  as  the  Father  of  the  Jews  alone.  2d,  for  the  ex- 
planation of  words  and  forms,  especially  those  used  prover- 
bially or  parabolically,  such  as  'A5a,ct  a^x'^ios,  yXuirtrai  xaivai, 
iTi^aiy  &c.  [For  the  languages  of  Palestine,  see  Pfann- 
kuche^a  Diss.    Itib.  Cab.  vol.  ii.] 


WRITTEN  BY  JEWS.  175 

II.  It  cannot  be  doubted,  that  remains  of 
this  dialect  are  to  be  found  in  Jewish  writers  ; 
not  certainly  in  all,  or  of  every  age,  but  in 
those  who  lived  near  the  age  of  the  Apostles, 
or  in  those  who  have  preserved  fragments  of 
the  writers  of  that  age.  In  the  former  class 
we  may  place  the  authors  of  the  Targums^ 
the  Jerusalem  Mischna  of  the  second  century, 
and  the  book  of  Sohar,  which  is  nearly  of  the 
same  age :  in  the  latter,  many  others,  as  the 
writers  of  the  Gemara,  Rabboth,  an  d  Midrash^ 
who,  though  they  wrote  some  centuries  later, 
have  preserved  the  words  of  more  ancient 
writers.  Concerning  these  works,  the  reader 
may  consult  JVolftu^  Bibl.  Hebr.  Schoetgen's 
Lect.  Rabbin,  lib.  i.,  GilVs  Preface  to  his  Com- 
mentary on  the  Gospels,  and  Harenberg's  Pro- 
leg,  ad  Comm.  in  Apocalypsin  Johan.*^ 

^  The  best  paraphrase  Q''^")/^,  is  that  of  Onkelos  on  the 
Pentateuch,  and  that  of  Jonathan  on  the  Prophets.  The 
Mischna  has  been  translated  into  Latin,  and  illustrated 
with  notes  by  G.  Surenhuse,  Amst.  1698,  fol.  and  into 
German  by  Rubins,  Onoldi  1760,  vi.  vols,  quarto.  The 
same  learned  divine  has  translated  into  German,  from  the 
Gemara,  the  Brachoth,  Halle  1777,  [and  the  Peak,  Aris- 
pach  1781.  For  a  general  short  account  of  the  ancient 
Jewish  writers,  the  reader  may  consult  Morus,  or  rather 
his  Editor  Eichst'ddt,  Acr.  Acad.  ii.  152.  seq.  or  Home's 
Introd.  ii.  157.] 


176  THE   USE  OF  WORKS 

III.  Although  students  of  theology  cannot 
be  generally  recommended  to  study  these 
writings,  yet  they  ought  diligently  to  peruse 
the  writings  of  those  who  have  collected  from 
the  mass  of  rubbish  which  these  contain,  what- 
ever fragments  may  bear  upon  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  New  Testament.  The  most  emi- 
nent authors  in  this  department,  are  Cartwright^ 
in  his  Mellificium  Hebraicum,  J.  Drusius^  in 
ills  Prseterita,  and  Lightfoot  and  Schoetgcn,  in 
their  respective  Horse  Talmudicse.^  To  all  of 
these  may  be  applied  what  Simon  (Hist.  Crit. 
iii.  765)  applies  to  Cartwright,  namely,  that 
they  are  more  full  upon  rites  than  upon  words  ; 
that  they  follow  their  opinions  too  far;  and 
that  they  sometimes  force  the  Jewish  writers 
to  express  their  own  opinions.  To  these  may 
be  added,  besides  Hakspan  de  lib.  Jud^eorum, 
Lipomann^s  Nizachon,  c.  iii.  sec.  2,  on  the  use  of 
the  Jewish  writers  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
New  Testament ;  and  Bait.  Scheidii  Prseterita 
Prseteritorum  in  the  CoUectlo  Meuscheniana. 
Collections  smaller  in  bulk,  but  more  select, 
have  been  made  by  the  CapeUi,^  by  Ludovic, 
on  the  occasion  of  his  editing  Cameron's  My- 
rothecium.  Among  commentators,  this  aid  was 
first  used  by  Grotim^  who  has  applied  it  with 
considerable  diligence;   and  the  best  of  Wet- 


WRITTEN  BY  JEWS.  177 

stein's  notes  on  the  New  Testament,  as  also  of 
Giirs  on  the  Gospels,  are  those  which  consist 
of  extracts  from  the  Jewish  writers.  For  a 
notice  of  GaulmiiCs  unedited  notes  on  this 
subject,  see  Simon's  Bibl.  Crit.  iv.  p.  185. 
Upon  the  whole,  it  appears  that  enough  has 
been  done  in  the  formation  of  such  collections, 
and  what  is  now  wanted  is  the  labour  of  some 
judicious  scholar  to  select  and  condense.' 

^  Drusius  published  his  Praeterita,  that  is,  points  omitted 
by  Erasmus  and  Beza,  in  1612.  Lightfoot's  Horse  Hebraicae 
and  Talmudicae,  were  published  at  Cambridge  in  1658. 
Schoetgen's  Horse  Talmudicee  at  Dresden  1733. 

^  Of  the  Capelli  we  must  distinguish  three,  two  Jameses 
and  Ludovic  the  adversary  of  Buxtorf,  and  author  of  the 
Critica  Sacra.  The  collections  of  Meuschen  appear  in  his 
Nov.  Test,  e  Talmude  illustrato,  liips.  1736. 

'  Many  extracts  from  the  Jewish  writings  have  been 
made  by  Drusius,  Lightfoot,  Schoetgen,  and  Wetstein,  who 
commonly  had  recourse  to  a  Latin  vesion,  which  are  little 
capable  of  throwing  light  on  the  interpretation  of  the  N.  T. 
Some,  however,  remain,  which  throw  light  upon  the  most 
difficult  passages,  partly  from  the  Mischna,  especially  the 
J^•)2l^^  "'p*lH))  partly  from  the  book  of  Sokar,  of  which  a 
compendium  has  been  given  by  Knorr  a  Rosenroth  in  his 
Cabbala  denudata,  and  partly  from  the  later  Jewish  writers. 
Exanaples  of  such  application  may  be  found  in  my  Ascensus 
J.  C.  in  ccelum  Historia  Biblica,  published  in  the  Nova 
Opusc.  Theol.  Gotting.  1803,  p.  57.  De  Vestigiis  theologiae 
Judaicag  in  Epistola  Pauli  ad  Romanos.  ibid.  p.  72,  and,  De 
Linguis  Novis,  Erlangeri  18J3.  Nor  ought  v/e  to  neglect 
3Iaimonides'  work  □''3'l3i  nilQ^  and  his  tracts,  de  doc- 
N 


178  THE  USE  OF  WORKS 

trina  legis,  and  de  Poenitentia,  edited  by  Clavering,  Oxon. 
1705.  See  pages  58,  59,  63,  73,  75,  87-  To  these  we  may 
add  also  his  tract  on  Oaths,  Ed.  Dithmar,  Lugdun.  1706. 

IV.  The  ancient  Jewish  writings  sometimes 
throw  light  not  merely  upon  words,  but  upon 
things  also.  For  the  rites,  manners,  and 
opinions  to  which  they  allude,  sometimes  ex- 
plain similar  allusions  in  the  New  Testament. 
And  for  this  purpose,  those  authors  are  most 
useful  who  have  illustrated  Hebrew  antiquities 
from  Jewish  authors ;™  and  among  these  we 
may  recommend  RelancVs  oration,  and  GilVs 
disputation  in  the  Catenae  Britannicse  Com- 
ment, in  N.  T.,  T.  I. 

•"  The  utility  of  these  may  be  illustrated  by  examples. 
The  parable  in  Imke  xvi.  cannot  be  understood,  unless  we 
keep  in  mind  that  the  Jews,  like  other  orientals,  represent- 
ed eternal  happiness  under  the  figure  of  a  feast,  at  which 
the  seat  of  honour  was  in  Abraham's  bosom.  They  ima- 
gined also,  that  the  souls  of  the  pious  were  carried  thither 
by  angels,  while  the  impious  were  plunged  into  sulphurous 
flames.  The  passage  in  Matt.  v.  34,  [z-a  ofioircti  oXus,  may  be 
illustrated  from  the  tract  Jll^lQti^  of  the  IMischna:  Acts 
ii.  3,  yXuffffai  uffu  ^vfos,  is  illustrated  by  Vitringa  (de  Syn. 
Vet.  p.  146,)  by  a  parallel  passage  from  the  Schalschelet 
Hakabl)ala  ;  and  the  Lord's  prayer  may  in  like  manner  be 
shewn  to  have  been  founded  on  the  Kadish  prayers  of  the 
Jews.  [The  translator  is  not  aware  what  work  of  Reland's 
is  referred  to  in  the  text.  Reland,  besides  his  Geography, 
published  two  works  on  Jewish  Antiquities,  Antiquitates 


WRITTEN  BY  JEWS.  179 

sacrae  veterum  Hebrasorum,  and,  de  Spoliis  templi  Hieroso- 
lymitani  in  arcu  Titiano  Romae  conspicuis.     Few  portions 
of  Scripture  require  or  admit  of  more  illustration  from  the 
Rabbinical  writings,  than  the  discourse  of  our  Lord  to  Ni- 
codemus.      If  it  be  inquired  what  particular  notion  our 
Lord   wished  to  convey  to  Nicodemus  by  the  expression, 
"  ye  must  be  born  a^aw,"  or  from  above  ;  we  learn  from 
these   writings,  1st,  That  every   descendant  of  Abraham 
was  considered  as  qualified  by  birthright  to  participate  in 
Messiah's  Kingdom.     Thus  the  Sanhedrim  fol.  90.  1,  says, 
"  there  is  a  part  allotted  to  all  Israel  in  the  world  to  come." 
Again,  we  find  that  proselytes  who  had  not  this  right  by 
birth,  acquired  it  by  an  emblematical  regeneration  or  new 
birth.     So,  Jevamoth,  fol.  62.  1,  "  if  any  one  l)ecome  a  pro- 
selyte, he  is  a  child  new  born."     Hence  we  conclude,  that 
Nicodemus   must   have  understood   that  the   kingdom   of 
Messiah  was  not,  as  he  had  supposed,  a  mere  elevation  of  the 
whole  Jewish  nation  ;  but  a  new  state  of  religion,  to  which 
they  as  well  as  the  Gentiles  must  be  admitted  as  proselytes, 
and  be  regenerated  by  baptism.] 

V.  There  are,  however,  several  cautions  to 
be  given  respecting  the  use  of  these  writers. 
For,  in  the  first  place,  we  must  avoid  the  in- 
consistency of  those  who  extol  or  depreciate 
their  authority,  according  as  their  statements 
agree  with,  or  contradict  their  own  opinion  : 
and  we  must  also  avoid  the  blind  zeal  of  those 
who,  captivated  by  their  favourite  pursuit,  ap- 
prove, without  discrimination,  whatever  is  pro- 
duced from  Jewish  writers,   and  forcibly  ac- 


180  THE   USE  OF  WORKS 

commodate  it  to  the  illustration  of  the  New 
Testament.  Into  this  error  Lightfoot  and 
Gill  especially  have  fallen. 

VI.  We  shall  be  better  able  to  comply  with 
these  cautions,  and,  upon  the  whole,  to  use 
the  works  of  which  we  are  treating,  to  a  better 
purpose,  if  we  can  fix  upon  some  certain  rule 
which  prescribes  a  definite  method  of  making 
our  choice.  For  those  who  merely  prescribe, 
that  in  this  branch  of  study  we  should  neither 
go  too  far,  nor  stop  too  short ;  do  not  give  us 
any  help,  since  no  one  thinks  that  he  himself 
relies  upon  it  either  too  much  or  too  little." 

"  Upon  the  whole,  this  rule  may  l)e  observed  ;  that  in  the 
N.  T.  wherever  religious  rites  are  treated  of,  and  in  forms 
of  teaching  and  prayer,  illustrations  may  be  found  in  the 
Jewish  writers.  Thus  St.  Paul  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, often  writes  as  might  be  expected  from  a  scholar  of 
Gamaliel.  Wetstein  has  led  the  way  to  this  plan  of  illustra- 
tion in  his  notes,  either  from  his  own  collections,  or  from 
those  of  others.  A  good  choice  of  illustrations  from  the 
Jeivish  writers,  may  also  be  found  in  Eichhorri's  Comment. 
in  Apocalypsin. 

VII.  In  making  this  choice,  much  must  de- 
pend upon  natural  acuteness,  improved  by 
study  and  the  elegancies  of  polite  letters.  It 
may,  however,  be  serviceable  to  observe,  that 
we  ought  to  seek  assistance  from  these  authors 


WRITTEN  BY  JEWS.  181 

only  when  it  is  needed,  that  is  to  say,  only 
when  we  cannot,  by  a  knowledge  either  of 
Greek  or  ancient  Hebrew,  discover  a  sense 
agreeable  to  the  context."  And  this  is  that 
middle  course  which  some  have  prescribed  in 
this  matter;  for,  when  a  difficulty  is  explain- 
able by  these  ordinary  aids,  it  is  absurd  to 
have  recourse  to  the  Rabbinical  writers.  It 
will  be  useful  also  to  consult  those  who  have 
written  with  caution  and  taste  on  this  subject; 
among  whom  I  would  recommend  especially 
Capelhis  in  his  Specilegium,  and  Grotius  in 
those  of  his  notes  which  are  of  this  class. 

**  We  have  a  remarkable  example  in  Acts  xiii.  48,  TiTxy- 
fiivoi  us  ^«y>?v  a,i&)viov.  Those  who  explain  this  in  a  Jewish 
sense,  consider  riTayf^ivoi  as  used  for  the  Hebrew  T)")iJ, 
destined.  The  Greek  signification,  however,  affords  a  bet- 
ter explanation  of  the  passage :  rumiv  laurov  tt;  t<,  is  to  be 
studious  or  active  for  any  thing.  See  Koppe  on  Rom.  ix. 
22.  [It  may  be  doubted,  however,  whether  the  superiority 
of  the  sense,  that  is,  its  accordance  with  our  preconceived 
systems,  is  a  very  safe  guide  in  this  matter.  With  reference 
to  the  limitation  proposed  by  Ernesti,  we  may  observe,  that 
in  many  cases  the  general  sense  derived  from  the  Greek  is 
quite  consistent  with  the  context,  and  yet  the  passage  has  a 
special  sense  which  can  be  learned  only  from  the  Jewish 
writings.  Thus  in  the  sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  phrase 
ny,ou(ra.Ti  on  ipp'^^yi,  ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  judged 
merely  from  the  Greek,  might  mean,  that  some  one  indivi- 
dual had  said  so  ;  or  if  rois  a^^a'iois  be  added,  that  it  was  an 
old  opinion :  but  the  frequent  expression  of  Maimonides 


182  THE  USE  OF  WORKS 

they  learned  by  hearing^  shews  that  the  meaning  is,  ye  have 
been  taught  by  tradition.'\ 


VIII.  In  all  that  relates  to  antiquities,  Philo 
and  Josephiis  are  to  be  preferred  to  the  Rab- 
binical writers,  as  being  both  earlier  and  more 
learned  than  they  :  nor  are  they  to  be  listened 
to  who,  misled  by  a  foolish  partiality  for  the 
Rabbins,  or  by  their  own  partial  opinions, 
maintain  that  their  authority  ought  to  be  pre- 
ferred, when  it  contradicts  that  of  Philo  and 
Josephus.  For  when  the  question  is  respect- 
ing the  Temple,  or  the  religious  rites  con- 
nected with  it,  as,  for  example,  the  Passover, 
the  Holy  Place,  and  the  Temple  of  Herod,  a 
higher  degree  of  credit  ought  surely  to  be 
given  to  those  who  saw  and  took  a  share  in 
these  things,  than  to  those  who  lived  after  the 
Temple  was  destroyed,  and  the  rites  connected 
wdth  it  disused.P  The  ignorance  of  the  Jews, 
and  their  gross  falsehoods  respecting  Hebrew 
antiquities,  are  well  exposed  by  Heinins  in  his 
Obs.  Sac.  i.  9,  ii.  3. 


p  Thus,  for  instance,  the  Talmudists  assert  that  the  priests 
sacrificed  the  paschal  lamb,  while  Philo  asserts  that  the  sa- 
crifice was  performed  by  each  father  of  a  family.  They  say, 
that  the  old  temple  was  not  entirely  destroyed  by  Herod  ; 
Josephus  asserts  that  even  the  sanctuary  was  pulled  down. 


WRITTEN  BY  THE  JEWS.  183 

In  these  cases  Philo  and  Joseplius  are  the  more  credible  au- 
thorities. Light  is  thrown  upon  some  passages  of  the  New- 
Testament,  by  the  Samaritan  remains  published  in  Eich- 
horri's  Repertorium  Lit.  Or.  et  Bibl.  T.  ix.  and  in  Paulus* 
Repert.  T.  I.  p.  120,  seq. 

IX.  Philo  is  particularly  useful  in  illustrat- 
ing the  allegorical  and  mystical  reasonings,  so 
much  used  by  St.  Paul :  in  which  point  there 
is  so  striking  a  similarity  between  him  and  St. 
Paul,  that  some  have  supposed  the  Apostle 
must  have  seen  the  writings  of  Philo,^  and 
among  these  TVetstein,  see  his  N.  T.  p.  384. 
This,  however,  appears  to  me  hardly  more 
credible  than  the  opinion  advanced  by  Ottius 
in  his  Spicilegium,  that  Josejjhus  had  availed 
himself  of  the  writings  of  St.  Paul.  For,  as  it 
can  scarcely  be  supposed,  that  St.  Paul  was  so 
well  skilled  in  Greek  as  to  understand  the 
works  of  Philo,  written  in  a  style  quite  re- 
moved from  Hebrew  usage,  and  emulating  the 
elegance  of  Plato  and  Demosthenes;  so,  on 
the  other  hand,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  sup- 
posing that  they  both  drew  from  the  same 
ancient  fountains.  On  these  points  I  would 
refer  the  reader  to  Loesner''s  Lectiones  Phi- 
lonianse. 

•5  [For  a  compendious  view  of  the  passages  in  Philo  ap- 
plicable to  the  elucidation  of  the  New  Testament,  see  G. 


184  THE  USE  OF  WORKS 

Dahlii  Chrestomathia  Philoniana,  sive  Loci  illustres  ex  Phi- 
lone  Alexandrino  decerpti.  Harnb.  1800,  8.  The  whole 
works  of  Philo  were  edited  by  T.  Mangey,  Lond.  1742, 
2  vols,  fol.] 

X.  I  must  deny  what  I  find  asserted  by 
some  unskilful  philologers,  that  the  writings 
of  Josephus  are  useful  to  the  interpretation  of 
the  New  Testament,  because  he  writes  in  the 
same  style  in  which  it  is  written.  For  Jose- 
phus  imitates  with  great  care  and  considerable 
success,  the  writers  of  pure  Greek,  especially 
Polyhius,  both  in  single  words,  and  in  the  turn 
of  his  sentences :  intermixing  but  few  He- 
braisms, and  therein,  as  he  himself  says,  depart- 
ing from  the  custom  of  his  fellow  countrymen. 
He  sometimes,  however,  exhibits  peculiarities 
worthy  of  observation ;  these  have  been  col- 
lected by  Ottius,  in  his  Spicilegium,  and  still 
more  carefully  by  Krebsius,  in  his  Observa- 
tiones  ad  N.  T.  a  Josepho.'  Even  by  these 
collectors,  some  things,  as  might  be  expected, 
have  been  omitted ;  thus  Josephus  uses  roc 
/3Xscro/x£va  for  the  accomplishment  of  a  promise, 
(A.  J.  10,  ad  extr.)  which  illustrates  Hebr. 
xi.  1.  He  uses  also  hXoynv  for  lihejiy,  which 
illustrates  Rom  ix.  11,  where  n  '^olt  hXoyriv 
ir^odsffig,  about  which  systematic  divines  have 
given  themselves  so  much  unnecessary  trouble. 


WRITTEN  BY  JEWS.  185 

means  merely  the  free  will  of  God  in  confer- 
ring benefits ;  and  this  use  of  the  word  is  taken, 
partly  from  the  usage  of  the  Hebrews,  who 
had  no  word  to  express  liberty  but  "1112 ;  and 
partly  from  the  nature  of  the  thing,  since  li- 
berty consists  in  the  power  of  choice.  But 
the  perusal  of  Josephus  will  be  most  available 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament, 
if  we  observe  how  he  expresses  in  Greek,  ideas 
drawn  from  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  Thus, 
in  the  history  of  Corah,  the  words  HTT^  ''^S^, 
which  the  LXX.  render  xarsvavr/  tox)  Kv^kv,  are 
rendered  by  Josephus  ^arsmvri  rou  Tgors/xsi/zV/xarog, 
[before  the  vestibule  of  the  tabernacle].  This 
class  of  observations  has  been  too  much  ne- 
jj-lected. 


'^  Josephus  imitates  with  success,  Thucydides  and  Poly- 
bius,  with  the  admixture  of  a  very  few  Hebraisms ;  such  as 
xoivos  for  ?£?5?Xoj,  croixx.ovs  Ti^iriB-itrS-en  for  to  put  on  mourning. 
Interpreters,  therefore,  must  not  abuse  the  diction  of  Jo- 
sephus to  illustrate  the  words  of  the  N.  T.,  but  rather  use 
it  to  illustrate  the  history  of  the  Old,  and  sometimes  of  the 
New  Testament.  Many  good  observations  on  the  N.  T., 
drawn  from  the  writings  of  the  Jews,  may  be  found  in 
Raymundi  Martini  pugio  tidei  adversus  JMauros  et  Ju- 
da?os.  Lips.  1687.  [The  historical  authority  of  Josephus 
is  high  with  respect  to  rites  and  customs  existing  in  his 
own  time  ;  but  in  his  representations  of  Jewish  ancient  his- 
tory, he  appears  to  have  aimed  at  presenting  to  the  heathen 
world  a  favourable,  rather  than  accurate  picture  of  his  an- 


186  THE  USE  OF  WORKS,  &C. 

cestors.  The  best  critics,  therefore,  agree  in  limiting  the 
historical  utility  of  Josephus  in  the  interpretation  of  Scrip- 
ture, to  these  rites  and  customs.  See  Mori  Acroases  Acad, 
ii.  179.  And  for  the  character  and  origin  of  his  style,  id. 
183.  seq.] 


THE   INTERPRETERS  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT.       187 


CHAPTER  IX. 

OF  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
MENT ;  AND  OF  THEIR  USE. 

I.  The  early  ages  of  the  Cluircli  admitted 
several  kinds  of  interpretation,  as  the  mystical 
or  allegorical,  the  dogmatic,  and  the  grammati- 
cal or  grammatico-rhectorical.  Nor  did  all  in- 
terpreters use  the  same  form :  for  some  wrote 
Commentaries,  others  Scholia,  and  others  Ho- 
milies. 

II.  The  most  ancient  is  the  allegorical,  ori- 
ginating, no  doubt,  from  the  synagogue,  which 
is  styled  on  that  account  ^'V^U  IT1,  and  from 
the  schools  of  the  Jewish  doctors.  For  the 
Gospels  inform  us,  that  it  was  lawful  in  the 
synagogues  to  comment  upon  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture :  and  in  the  schools  of  the  Rabbins,  which 
were  also,  called  synagogues,  after  the  de- 
struction of  the  Temple,  the  only  topic  of  in- 
struction was  the  proper  method  of  interpret- 


188  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

ing-  the  Law  and  the  Prophets;  in  which,  in- 
deed, the  sum  and  substance  of  Jewish  learning 
consisted.^ 

^  They  interpreted,  however,  without  any  taste  or  per- 
ception  of  beauty  and  truth.  See  Vitringa,  de  Synagoga 
Vet.  p.  137,  sq.  [The  general  character  of  their  interpre- 
tations may  be  best  learned  from  the  Targums,  in  which 
are  collected  the  opinions  of  many  doctors,  and  specifically 
of  Gamaliel,  Hillely  and  others  of  high  eminence.  The  schools 
may  liavebeen  usually  called  ti^"T7Q  r\*^ll  liouse  of  investi- 
gation, but  the  ordinary  name  of  the  synagogue,  or  house  of 
religious  asseraldy,  was  JlOJDn  /T'll'  ^^use  of  the  con- 
gregation.] 

III.  This  style  of  interpretation  was  used 
of  old  by  the  Prophets,  in  such  a  manner,  how- 
ever, as  to  be  perfectly  free  from  all  human 
fancies  and  errors.  In  this  way  they  inter- 
preted the  prophecies  relating  to  Christ,  and 
accommodated  types  and  facts,  especially  his- 
torical facts,  to  the  illustration  of  human  and 
divine  truths,  to  the  confirmation  of  doctrine 
and  precept,  and,  upon  the  whole,  to  the  pro- 
motion of  faith  and  holy  practice.  And  this 
we  ought  to  call  mystical  interpretation^  which 
differs  from  allegorical^  as  among  the  Greeks, 
i^sww'a  differs  from  aXXriyopia} 

'  The  history  of  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  shews, 
that  both  the  mystical  and  allegorical  interpretation  of  the 


NEW  testament;  and  their  use.     189 

New  Testament,  were  derived  from  Hebrew  models.  These 
methods,  as  hurtful  to  all  sound  theology,  ought  carefully 
to  be  avoided  by  teachers  of  religion.  [Morus  understands 
Ernesti  to  be  speaking  in  this  chapter  of  the  schools  of  the 
Prophets,  (1  Sara.  xix.  20,)  but  every  thing  here  said,  ex- 
cept that  of  the  interpretation  of  the  prophecies  relative  to 
Christ,  is  true  of  the  writings  of  the  Prophets.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  the  practice  of  inspired  men  can  form  no  rule 
with  respect  to  interpretation,  for  those  who  are  unin- 
spired.] 

IV.  The  system  of  mystical  interpretation 
was,  however,  speedily  corrupted,  by  men  of 
uncultivated  minds,  who  aspired  to  the  praise 
of  originality  and  acuteness.  They  omitted 
the  better  part  of  the  system,  that  which  treat- 
ed of  types  and  prophecies;  and  forced  into 
some  spiritual  accommodation  the  most  minute 
circumstances,  and  even  single  words.  Inter- 
pretation thus  degenerated  into  a  mere  play 
upon  words,"  and  the  indulgence  of  unground- 
ed fancies ;  and  it  is  to  be  regretted,  that  these 
errors  are  still  entertained  by  some  in  their  in- 
terpretations of  the  Parables.  Philo  uses  this 
system  more  judiciously,  as  might  be  expected 
from  his  cultivated  intellect ;  but  he  indulged 
too  much  in  philosophical  refinements. 

"  [The  Jewish  interpreters  play  not  merely  upon  words 
but  upon  letters.  Some  of  them  hold  that  Adam,  David, 
JMessias,  are  three  incarnations  of  the   same  spiritual  sub- 


190  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

stance ;  and  the  proof  of  this  is,  that  Q"T»^  consists  of  three 
letters,  whereof  the  ^  represents  Adam,  the  1  David,  and 
the  Q  IMessias.  The  translator  received  this  interpreta- 
tion, by  tradition,  from  a  learned  Jew.] 

V.  This  method,  then,  which  had  its  origin 
among  the  Jews,  was  adopted  by  the  early 
Christian  teachers,  and  especially  by  those  of 
Egypt,  who  were  influenced  by  the  example 
of  Philo.  That  example  taught  them  stu- 
diously to  lead  the  minds  of  men  from  sensible 
objects,  to  the  contemplation  and  the  know- 
ledge of  those  which  are  spiritual  and  invisible. 
Even  after  the  introduction  of  grammatical  in- 
terpretation, this  method  was  still  pursued  by 
those  who,  through  ignorance  of  languages 
and  history,  were  almost  necessarily  compelled 
to  have  recourse  to  allegories  :  thus,  Jerome 
confesses  of  himself,  that,  when  a  young  man, 
he  had  interpreted  Ahdias  allegorically,  be- 
cause he  was  ignorant  of  his  history,  and  he 
begs  pardon  of  the  public  for  this  ignorance. 
Nor  did  the  most  learned,  as  Origen,  in  all 
cases  show  themselves  more  capable  of  restrain- 
ing their  fancy  than  the  Jews  had  been.  We 
must  grant,  however,  that  this  method  of  inter- 
pretation was  serviceable  against  the  Millen- 
arians,  the  Anthopomorphites,  and  the  Gnos- 
tics.'' 


NEW  testament;  and  their  use.     191 

^  Barnabas,  Clement  of  Rome,  Justin  Martyr,  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  and  Origen,  have  all  used  allegorical  interpre- 
tation, with  some  mixture  of  gentile  philosophy.  See 
Schuler''s  History  of  the  Interpretation  of  Scripture,  Tubin- 
gen, 1787  ;  Semler's  Versuch  die  Auslegung  des  N.  T.  zu 
befordern,  p.  185,  seq.  and  Rosenmiiller^s  Comm.  de  fatis  In- 
terpretationis  sac.  lit.  in  Ecclesia  Christiana,  Lips.  1789- 
1791. 

VI.  To  tins  metiiodj  which  tended  rather  to 
edification,  that  is  to  the  inculcation  of  dogmas 
and  precepts,  and  to  the  exhibition  of  an  in- 
genious fraicy,  than  to  the  explanation  of  Scrip- 
ture, was  afterwards  added  the  grammatieal 
method  of  interpretation.  This  consisted  in 
the  explanation  of  words,  sentences,  and  his- 
tories, either  difiBcult  or  obscure  ;  and  in  the 
statement  and  critical  choice  of  various  read- 
ings. It  was  first  used  by  Origen,  a  man  not 
more  skilled  in  theology  than  in  general  litera- 
ture, which,  as  we  learn  from  Eusebius,  he 
tauo^ht  at  Alexandria.^ 

>  Origen  began  with  interpreting  the  Scriptures  allego- 
rically,  but  deserted  this  method  when  his  mind  had  be- 
come familiar  with  the  true  principles  of  philology  ;  and  the 
same  change  is  every  day  taking  place  in  our  own  time. 
[The  critical  labours  of  Origen  have  already  been  noticed, 
chap.  vii.  §  29,  n.  f.  As  to  interpretation,  we  find  that 
he  was  the  author  of  a  work  entitled  ffyif^uuffus,  which  we 
may  render  scholia,  or  with  Jerome  eoccerpta.      His  work 


19*2  THE   INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

is  not  now  extant,  but  from  the  fragments  still  existing,  we 
may  conclude  that  it  \vas  a  grammatical  commentary.  The 
fragments  are  to  be  found  in  Origen's  Philocalia,  a  compi- 
lation of  what  we  might  now  call  the  beauties  of  Origen, 
collected  by  Basil  the  Great,  and  Gregory,  surnamed  the 
Theologian.     It  was  printed  by  «/.  Tamms,  at  Paris,  1618.] 


VII.  Finally,  as  the  number  of  interpreters 
completely  acquainted  with  the  requisite  lan- 
guages, and  cultivated  by  the  study  of  polite 
literature,  began  to  increase  among  the  Greeks, 
so  the  allegorical  method  of  interpretation  gra- 
dually fell   into    disuse.     Diodorus    Tarsensis 
(see  Socrat.  vi.  3,  Sozom.  viii.  2,)  led  the  way 
in  this  change,   and  his  system  was  followed 
by    his    pupils,    Theodorus   Mopsuestenus,    and 
J.    Chrysostom.      As    to    the    charge    brought 
against  Diodorus  and  Theodorus,  of  turning  the 
historical  sense  of  the  Prophets  into  accom- 
modations,  this  may  either  have  been  a  ca- 
lumny, invented  by  those  whose  love  for  alle- 
gorical interpretation  led  them  to  calumniate 
the  works  of  grammatical  interpreters,    whose 
reputation  they  envied :  or,  if  the  charge  were 
true,  they  may  still  have  applied  the  principles 
of  grammatical  interpretation  to    the  faithful 
interpretation   of   Scripture  in   general.     For 
an  account  of  Theodorus^  see  Buddei  Isagoge, 
p.  1405.      It  is  remarkable,  however^  that  Bud- 


NEW  TESTAMENT  ;  AND  THEIR  USE.       193 

deus,  in  his  catalogue  of  interpreters,  makes 
no  mention  of  Diodorus,  when  there  are  so 
many  extracts  from  his  works  in  the  Catenae, 
although,  as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  discover, 
nothing  of  very  high  value/ 

'  [It  seems  unnecessary  to  say  more  of  Diodorus  and  Theo- 
dorus  ;  Chrysostom  will  come  under  our  notice  again  in  a 
succeeding  chapter.  The  CatencB,  or  collections  of  the  ex- 
positions of  the  Fathers  are  very  numerous.  Besides  those 
on  the  Old  Testament,  there  are  upon  the  New,  Sjmibola- 
rum  in  Matthaeum  tomus  prior,  &c.  edited  by  Peter  Pos~ 
sinus,  Thoulouse  1646,  and  a  second  volume  published  the 
next  year.  Catena  in  Evang.  sec.  JMarcum,  by  P.  Possinusj 
Rome  1673.  Victor'' s,  &c.  Exegesis  on  Mark,  published  by 
C.  F.  Matthcei  at  Moscow  1775.  Catena  sexaginta  quin^ue 
PP.  Gra>,c.  in  Lucam,  &c.  by  Bait.  Corderiiis,  Antwerp 
1628.  Catena  of  Greek  Fathers  on  John,  by  the  same, 
1630.  To  these  we  may  add  CEcumenii  Comment,  in  Acta 
Apost.  et  omnes  Pauli  Epistolas,  &c.  edited  by  Morel,  Paris 
1631.] 

VIII.  Allegorical  interpretation  prevailed 
also  in  the  Latin  Church ;  and  it  had  its  origin 
there,  partly  in  the  Latin  version  of  Origen's 
commentaries ;  and  partly  in  the  study  of  Ori- 
gen  and  similar  writers,  by  Hilary,  Ambrose, 
and  others  who  were  acquainted  with  the 
Greek  language. 

IX.  Dogmatic  interpretation,  is  that  which 
consists  not  in  the  accurate  interpretation  of 

o 


194  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

words,  but  in  the  illustration  of  previously- 
formed  opinions,  by  disquisitions  on  heads  of 
doctrine  or  practice ;  in  the  management  of 
controversies;  and  in  the  defence  of  Scrip- 
tural doctrine  against  the  corruptions  of  here- 
tics. Under  this  head  we  may  class  the  Com- 
mentary on  John,  by  Cyrill  of  Alexandria,  in 
which,  however,  something  of  grammatical  in- 
terpretation is  intermixed,  and  many  others, 
especially  among  the  Latin  Fathers  and  mo- 
dern writers,  who  have  written  since  the  Re- 
formation. This  method,  however  useful  it 
may  be  for  theological  purposes,  is  seldom  of 
any  use  to  the  purposes  of  interpretation  pro- 
perly so  called.* 

"  Dogmatic  interpretation  is  perfectly  legitimate,  if  it  be 
founded  upon  that  which  is  grammatical.  Thus,  for  ex- 
ample, John  X.  39,  iyu  ko.)  o  ^arh^  'iv  la-fuv.  Since  this  text 
treats  of  the  moral  union  or  communion  existing  between 
the  Father  and  the  Son  with  respect  to  the  salvation  of 
sinners ;  and  the  dogmatic  inference  would  be  just,  that  the 
Saviour  was  united  to  the  Father  in  a  very  remarkable 
and  special  manner.  But  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
and  the  unity  of  essence,  be  immediately  inferred,  this  is  a 
faulty  application  of  the  dogmatic  system,  because  the  con- 
text of  the  passage  is  neglected.  [To  this  class  may  be  at- 
tributed almost  all  our  popular  commentaries,  as  those  of 
Scoitj  IJenry,  &c.  Whether  in  these  the  induction  of  dog- 
mas is  sufficiently  supported  by  previous  grammatical  in- 
terpretation,  may  perhaps  be   doubted.      The  experiment 


NEW  testament;  and  their  use.     195 

seems  never  to  have  been  fairly  tried,  as  to  how  far  gram- 
matical and  historical  interpretation  may  be  rendered  in- 
telligible and  useful  to  those  who  know  not  the  languages 
of  Scripture.] 

X.  There  is  also  a  sort  of  interpretation, 
compounded  of  all  these,  especially  of  the  two 
last,  which  both  treats  of  the  meaning  of  words 
with  grammatical  accuracy;  and  also  deduces 
theological  dogmas.  This  method,  if  it  ob- 
serve the  limits  we  have  laid  down,  is  not  only 
unobjectionable,  but  praiseworthy.^  The  laws 
of  interpretation  have,  however,  been  already 
explained.     See  vol.  i.  p.  185,  seq. 

'^  Since  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  according  to  sys- 
tematic and  rational  rules,  may  not  always  favour  the  pre- 
valent and  authorized  system  of  dogmatic  theology ;  a  pru- 
dent interpreter  therefore  will  probably  abstain  from  all 
dogmatic  observations  ;  and  he  may  properly  so  abstain,  be- 
cause dogmas  are  to  be  supposed  not  by  single  passages,  but 
from  the  whole  analogy  of  the  New  Testament.  [Except 
the  contempt  here  thrown  upon  the  Protestant  confessions 
and  liturgies,  the  observation  of  Amnion  is  correct.  A 
grammatical  interpreter  may  very  properly  avoid  all  dog- 
matic conclusions ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  a  dogmatic  in- 
terpreter will  produce  a  very  imperfect  work,  if  he  neglects 
all  reference  to  grammatical  interpretation.] 

XL  With  respect  to  the  different  forms  of 
interpretation,  the  first  place  must  be  given  to 
commentaries,'^  in  which,  at  first,  merely  alle- 


196  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

gories  were  explained  more  fully  and  copious- 
ly ;  then  grammatical  observations  were  occa- 
sionally introduced,  as  in  OrigerCs  Tomi ;  and 
still  later,  the  general  sense  of  the  author  was 
explained.  The  nature  of  this  form  of  inter- 
pretation is  well  described  by  Jerome  ;  "  what," 
says  he,  "  is  the  nature  of  commentaries  ? 
They  explain  the  writings  of  authors;  they 
propound  fully  and  plainly,  what  has  been 
written  briefly  and  obscurely ;  they  lay  before 
the  reader  the  opinions  of  many  interpreters : 
some,  say  they,  explain  the  passage  thus; 
others  explain  it  in  this  sense :  they  support 
their  interpretations  by  this  and  that  argu- 
ment. So  that  the  careful  reader  having  read 
much  that  is  admissible,  and  much  that  is  to 
be  rejected,  may  be  enabled  to  judge,  which, 
among  the  proposed  explanations,  comes  near- 
est to  the  truth."  Jerome,  cont.  Rufinum,  1.  i. 
p.  m.  202. 


•  A  Commentary  is  a  continuous  explanation  of  an  au- 
thor ;  proportionate  attention  being  paid  to  the  difficulties 
that  occur  either  in  words  or  matter.  Heyne's  interpreta- 
tion of  Virgil  is  an  example  of  a  good  commentary.  This 
style  is  very  difficult,  and  hence  the  extreme  rarity  of  good 
commentators.  [It  is  in  conitnuity  alone  that  a  commentary 
diifers  from  a  series  of  notes.  As  an  example  of  a  good 
commentary  on  the  New  Testament,  the  translator  would 


NEW  testament;  and  their  use.     197 

recommend  Koppe  on  the  Romans,  Galatians,  Thessalonians, 
and  Ephesians.] 

XII.  Another  form  of  interpretation  is  the 
Homily,  in  which  either  longer  portions  of 
Scripture,  or  single  texts  are  explained  and 
applied  to  the  practical  purposes  of  admoni- 
tion, instruction,  or  consolation ;  and  properly 
intended  for  the  service  of  the  Church.'*  The 
Latins  called  them  sermones  or  tractatus,  and 
the  authors  tractafores,  whom  we  should  call 
preachers;  though,  indeed,  interpreters  of  every 
class  were  called  tractatores  scripturariim.  The 
Glossaries  also  render  hfuXia  by  tractatus^  and 
o/x;j>./xog  by  tractator.  See  especially  Du  Cange 
on  the  words. 


*  The  Homily  corresponded  to  our  sermon  or  lecture,  but 
was  often  filled  with  pious  fables,  and  the  philosophy  of  the 
age.  Origen  and  Chrysostom  are  the  best  writers  in  this 
form. 


XIII.  The  third  form  is  that  of  Scholia^ 
which  were  likewise  called  <!n/^iiu)(fsig,  r/.j3oXat  or 
sTcXoyai,  [Eustathius  calls  them  '7ra^sx(3oXaj)  and 
excerpta^  by  which  word  Jerome  renders  <r£- 
IMcm6iig,  He  calls  this  form,  from  its  brevity, 
genus  commaticum,  in  his  commentary  on 
Matthew. 


108  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

XIV.  It  is  doubtful  whether  any  commen- 
taries were  written  before  Origen  or  not. 
Some  maintain  the  affirmative,  as  Huet,  Tille- 
mont,  and  Biiddeus ;  while  others  hold  that 
Origen  was  the  first  in  the  Christian  church 
who  introduced  the  writing  of  commentaries. 
I  incline  to  the  former  opinion  :  for  Origen 
(T.  vii.  in  Joan.)  refers  to  preceding  commen- 
taries, but  from  the  terms  in  which  they  are 
mentioned,  we  may  understand  them  to  have 
been  of  the  allegorical  and  mystical  kind : 
Origen  calls  them  ecclesiastical  writers.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  certain  that  Origen  gave 
the  first  example  of  a  literal  interpretation  of 
the  whole  New  Testament,  in  his  ff/j/xs/wtrs/c. 
See  my  Disp.  de  Origene,  &c.  §  26.® 

•  See  also  §  vi.  Note. 

XV.  Among  ancient  interpreters,  the  first 
rank  must  be  assigned  to  Origen,  not  only  be- 
cause he  first  set  the  example  of  grammatical 
interpretation,  nor  because  he  excelled  in  al- 
most every  style ;  having  written  his  Tomi  of 
allegorical  interpretation,  and  his  <r;j/x£/wtfs/?  of 
literal,  besides  his  Homilies  ;  but  principally, 
because  almost  all  the  valuable  observations  of 
the  ancient  Greek  and  Latin  interpreters  were 


NEW  testament;  and  their  use.     199 

borrowed  from  him,  as  I  have  shown  in  my 
Disputation  above  mentioned,  §  27,  28,  in 
which  also,  at  §  25,  will  be  found  a  full  exa- 
mination of  the  argument  and  the  naming  of 
the  (T'/^/xs/axTs/g/ 

*"[We  have  already  spoken  of  the  Hexapla  (Chap.  vii.  § 
29,)  and  of  the  (rYsf^nu^n?,  and  the  portions  of  them  preserved 
in  the  Philocalia,  (§  6,  of  this  chap.)] 

XVI.  We  have  the  less  reason  to  regret 
the  loss  of  the  volume  containing  Origen's 
Scholia,  because  they  were  almost  all  embo- 
died in  the  writings  of  succeeding  commenta- 
tors, as  Chrysostom  and  others.  Nor  are  the 
Tomi  to  be  despised,^  especially  those  which 
were  published  in  the  original  Greek  by  Huet, 
and  more  recently,  with  the  other  remains  of 
Origen  by  Delarue  (Ruseus).  There  are  also 
many  good  things  in  the  Latin  remains,  as,  for 
example,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  For 
even  among  his  Allegories  are  interspersed 
grammatical  remarks  of  no  vulgar  merit;  to 
say  nothing  of  the  fragments  of  his  commen- 
taries, preserved  in  the  Philocalia  and  in  the 
Catenae.  And  his  Allegories,  although  they 
cannot  tend  to  the  elucidation  of  Scripture, 
may  yet  serve  to  instil  and  to  cherish  pious 
affections.     In    this   point  of  view,  Erasmus, 


'200  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

though  generally  averse  from  this  style,  and 
himself  a  grammatical  interpreter,  approves  of 
the  allegorical  interpreters  in  his  Enchiridion 
Mil.  Christ,  cap.  2 ;  and  for  this  reason,  per- 
haps, he  has  admitted  something  of  allegory 
into  his  Paraphrase  of  the  New  Testament, 
for  which  he  is  blamed  by  Clarke  in  the  pre- 
face to  his  Paraphrase.^ 

s  Origen  wrote  thirty-two  Tomi  or  Sections  upon  the 
Gospel  of  John.  The  others  illustrate  Joshua,  Matthew, 
and  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  See  Origenis  Commentaria 
in  S.S.  ed.  Huetii.  Colon.  1685,  and  Roesler's  Bibl.  Patr. 
Eccles.  II.  270,  seq.  The  Homilies  of  Origen  exist  only  in 
Latin.  The  Philocalia  is  an  Epitome  of  the  works  of 
Origen,  excellently  edited  by  Spencer,  Camb.  IG68.  [The 
Philocalia,  as  before  noticed,  was  first  published  by  Tarinus 
in  1618.  It  was  re-edited  with  the  addition  of  the  viii. 
books  against  Celsus,  by  Spencer.'] 

^  [And  with  justice.  For,  unless  it  be  a  sin  of  ignorance, 
what  can  be  more  impious  than  for  a  man  to  publish  his  own 
waking  dreams  as  the  meaning  of  God's  word.] 

XVII.  Next  to  Origen  we  must  place  Chry^ 
sostom,  whose  Homilies  upon  Matthew,  John, 
Acts,  and  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  are  preserved 
to  us.  The  Homilies  on  the  Epistles  were 
first  published  separately  at  Verona,  1529,  by 
Bishop  Gihertus  ;  and  the  whole  of  them  are 
printed  both  in  the  entire  works,  and  in  the 
collections  of  Sylburgius.     The  style  in  which 


NEW  testament;  and  their  use.       201 

tliey  are  composed  lies  between  the  gramma- 
tical and  the  dogmatical ;  an  ethical  applica- 
tion being  appended  to  a  short  and  perspi- 
cuous interpretation  of  the  words.  The  whole 
of  antiquity  can  boast  of  nothing  superior  to 
the  Homilies  on  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul;  and, 
indeed,  all  the  Greeks,  who  afterwards  wrote 
on  these  Epistles,  did  little  more  than  repeat 
the  lessons  of  Chrysostom.  Of  the  Homilies 
on  the  historical  books,  those  on  Matthew  are 
most  worthy  the  attention  of  the  student.' 

'  [The  entire  remaining  works  of  Chrysostom  were  pub- 
lished, opera  et  studio  Bernardi  de  Montfaucon,  Paris  1718 
—38,  xiii.  fol.] 

XVIH.  Isidore  of  Pelusium  was  a  pupil  of 
Chrysostom.  We  have  his  five  books  of  Epis- 
tles, edited  in  parts  by  Ritterhuis  and  Schott, 
on  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  that  is,  on 
passages  of  Scripture,  and  dogmatic  questions 
depending  upon  the  sense  of  certain  passages. 
He  is  particularly  solicitous  to  reclaim  passages 
which  had  been  forced  into  the  support  of  ab- 
solute predestination,  as  in  Ep.  i.  56,  iv.  59, 
&c.  My  own  opinion  is,  that  he  has  been 
praised  beyond  his  merits.  He  generally  fol- 
lows his  master  Chrysostom;  adheres  princi- 
pally to  grammatical  interpretations,  and  shows 


202  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

a  fondness  for  criticism.  The  biblical  student 
will  do  well  to  turn  over  liis  work,  and  to  se- 
lect wliatever  may  be  found  serviceable. 

XIX.  As  far  superior  and  more  useful,  we 
must  next  mention  Theodoret^  Bishop  of  Cyrus; 
whose  Commentary  on  the  Epistles  of  Paul, 
in  Greek,  was  published  by  Siiinondus^  (T.  iii. 
Opp.  Theol.)  ;  though  it  is  written  in  the 
form  rather  of  scholia  than  of  a  commentary. 
He  himself,  in  his  preface,  calls  it  extracts 
from  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  especially 
Theod,  Mopsuestenus  and  Chrysostom.  He  not 
only  briefly  explains  the  words,  but  also  makes 
frequent  remarks  on  the  punctuation,  as  at 
Rom.  ix.  5  ;  he  gives  short  illustrations  of  the 
sense  of  passages  ;  deduces  arguments  against 
heretics,  especially  the  Arians ;  and  clears 
Scripture  from  the  corruptions  of  the  heretics 
of  his  time.  I  would,  therefore,  recommend 
his  Commentary  as  the  commencement  of  a 
course  of  exegetical  study.*^ 

^  His  commentary  on  the  minor  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  is 
particularly  worthy  of  attentive  perusal.  There  is  a  con- 
venient edition  edited  by  Schultz  and  Noesselt.  Halle  1769 
— 1774,  in  5  vols.  8vo.  [Ernesti,  as  Morus  observes, 
recommends  the  student  to  begin  with  Theodoret,  probably 
because  his  commentary  is  a  faithful  abstract  of  tlie  Homi- 
lies of  Chrysostom,  which  can  be  purchased  and  read  only 
at  a  great  expense  of  money  and  time.     The  interpreters 


NEW  TESTAMENT  :  AND  THEIR  USE.        203 

whom  we  have  noticed  in  the  foregoing  chapters,  are  com- 
monly called  the  writers  medii  aevi ;  having  all  flourished 
in  the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  centuries.] 

XX.  Similar  to  Theodoret  is  Theophylact, 
Bishop  of  Bulgaria,  whence  he  has  frequently 
been  styled  Vulgarius,  as  by  Melancthon,  Eras- 
mus, and  Camerarius.  We  possess  his  commen- 
taries, or  rather  scholia,  upon  the  Gospels,  the 
Acts,  and  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul ;  in  some 
manuscripts  they  are  titled  scr/ro/xa/.  He  borrow- 
ed from  the  same  sources,  and  followed  the  same 
method  as  Theodoret;  except  that,  besides 
dogmatic  inferences,  he  also  introduced  some- 
thing of  allegory  and  trifling.  We  may,  in- 
deed, suspect  that  these  are  interpolations, 
from  the  great  varieties  in  the  manuscripts, 
some  being  brief  or  copious  in  one  place,  and 
some  in  another ;  which  varieties  are  noted  by 
the  late  Venetian  editors.  R.  Simon  m  his 
Hist,  Crit.,  T.  iv.  ch.  28,  comes  to  the  same 
supposition,  from  the  use  of  the  formula  x-cci 
aXKoog :  although  this  is  very  usual  with  the 
Greek  scholiasts,  particularly  with  (Ecumenius, 
Theophylacf s  Commentary  on  the  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul  is  the  most  valuable  part  of  his  works, 
and  is  a  correct  com.pendium  of  Chrysostom. 
Respecting  the  late  edition,  see  Bibl.  Theol. 
T.  V.  p.  77 1.^ 


204  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

'  [Theophj'lact  lived  in  the  eleven tli  century.  The  edi- 
tion which  Ernesti  calls  Nupera  and  Veneta,  is  that  edited 
by  Finetti  and  Bongiovannij  under  the  title,  Theophylacti 
BulgaricB  Archiepiscopi,  opera  omnia,  sivequce  hactenus  edita 
sunt)  sive  quee  lucem  nonduin  viderunt ;  cum  prcevia  diss,  de 
ipsius  Theophylacti  gestis  et  scriptis  et  doctrina,  Venet.  1754 
~63,  iv.  foL] 

XXI.  In  the  same  class  may  be  placed  the 
Scholia  of  (Ecumenius  on  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  and  the  Epistles  of  St>  Paul.  These 
Scholia  are,  however,  attributed  to  GEcumenius 
merely  on  the  conjecture  of  Donatus  of  Ve- 
rona, the  first  editor,  without  any  authority 
from  the  manuscripts,  from  which,  in  the 
opinion  of  Finetti^  they  rather  appear  to  have 
been  the  work  of  Theophylact ;  see  his  Preface, 
T.  iii.  0pp.  Theophylact.  This  is  the  work  so 
frequently  quoted  under  the  general  name  of 
Scholia^  by  Erasmus,  Camerarius,  Beza,  and 
other  writers  of  that  age;  and  is  to  be  considered 
rather  as  a  compilation  from  diiferent  authors 
by  some  unknown  hand,  than  as  the  work  of 
one  person.  The  name  of  CEcumenius  occurs 
indeed  on  the  margin,  but  so  do  those  of  John, 
that  is  of  Chrysqstom  and  Photius.  It  may  be 
concluded,  that  some  extracts  have  been  made 
from  the  works  of  Origen,  as  traces  of  his  pe- 
culiar opinions  may  be  detected ;  see  Erasmus 
on  Heb.  vii.  25.°* 


NEW  TESTAMENT  ;  AND  THEIR  USE.      205 

™  [  Ammon  in  his  note  on  this  section  observes,  that  Theo- 
phylact  and  (Ecumenius  being  mere  compilers  from  Chry- 
sostom,  are  of  little  value  :  but  it  is  this  very  circumstance 
that  has  rendered  them  valuable  in  the  judgment  of  all  the 
most  eminent  modern  interpreters,  who  consider  the  value 
of  time  and  the  prolixity  of  Chrysostom.] 

XXII.  Very  similar  to  these  is  the  short 
commentary  of  Johannes  Damascenus  on  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  published  in  the  2d  vol. 
of  the  Benedictine  edition  of  his  works.  Da- 
mascenus, in  his  very  title,  professes  to  oiFer 
nothing  but  extracts  from  Chrysostom." 

°  Damascenus,  a  Syrian  Monk,  flourished  in  the  eighth 
century,  and  was  celebrated,  not  so  much  for  his  ability  in 
interpretation,  as  on  account  of  the  dogmatic  system  which 
he  gave  in  his  book,  <t£^/  hodoVo^vis  'Trlffrius.  [His  works  were 
edited  by  M.  Lequien,  Paris  1712,  2  vols,  fol.] 

XXIII.  In  the  same  class  with  Theophylact 
and  QEcumenius,  we  may  place  those  works, 
which,  under  the  name  of  Catena,  a  name  in- 
vented by  Aquinas,  have  been  printed,  or  still 
remain  in  manuscript,  and  which  by  the  Greeks 
were  styled  l'7nro[j.ai  s^/xtjvs/wv.®  The  Catenae  are 
extracts  from  the  commentaries  and  other  works 
of  the  Fathers,  whose  names  are  generally  af- 
fixed to  their  respective  portions,  collected 
and  digested  by  Olympiodorus,  Nicetas,  Proco- 


206  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

plus  of  Gaza  and  others:  those  who  wish  for 
further  information  respecting  the  Catenae, 
may  consult  Ittigius  de  Catenis  Patrum^  or 
rather  Simon^  Hist.  Crit.  c.  30,  or  Noesselt  in 
his  Dissertatio  de  Catenis  Patrum  Grcecorum : 
These  are  the  only  writers  who  have  written 
practically  on  the  subject ;  the  rest,  as  V/olfius, 
Fabricius,  &c.,  have  written  only  historically. 

°  The  different  Catenae  and  their  editors  have  already 
been  noticed,  see  §  ix.  note.  Their  use  is  threefold.  1st, 
They  have  preserved  many  fragments  of  Aquila,  and  the 
other  versions  of  the  Hexapla.  2d,  They  contain  extracts 
from  the  works  of  unknown  interpreters.  3d,  They  con- 
tain  many  important  various  readings. 

XXIV.  Nor  must  we  omit  to  mention  Eu- 
thymius  Zigahenus,  the  author  of  the  Panoplia 
Dogmatica,  who  wrote  in  the  twelfth  century. 
His  commentaries  on  the  Gospels,  principally 
borrowed  from  Chrysostom,  but  also  from 
others,P  have  been  edited  in  the  Latin  version 
by  Henten  and  praised  by  learned  men ;  as  by 
Sadolet ;  see  his  Epistles,  p.  214,  and  Fabriciu 
Bibl.  Grsec.  T.  vii.  p.  474,  Manuscript  copies 
of  commentaries  by  him  on  the  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul  and  the  Catholic  Epistles  are  mentioned. 

P  From  Basil,  Origen,  and  Gregory  Naz.  The  work  was 
undertaken  at  the  command  of  Alexius  Commenus,  and  di- 


NEW  testament;  and  their  use.     207 

rected  against  heresies  in  general.  [Dr.  Ammon  proceeds 
to  observe,  thatEuthymius,  in  his  interpretation  of  the  Temp- 
tation, Matt.  iv.  11,  is  very  sound,  that  is,  very  neological. 
Henten's  Latin  edition  is  published  in  the  Bibl.  Patrum. 
Max.  T.  xix.  p.  475.  The  Greek  text  from  two  Moscow 
MSS.  was  published  by  IMatthaei,  Leipzig,  1792.] 

XXV.  I  have  purposely  postponed  the  men- 
tion of  Cyrill  of  Alexandria^  whose  Commentary 
on  John  exists,  though  not  entire,  and  has 
been  edited  by  Aubert  in  his  edition  of  Cyrill's 
works,  T.  iv.,  because  he  is  less  an  interpreter 
than  a  dogmatist  and  controversialist,  especi- 
ally against  the  Arians.  There  are  in  his 
Commentary,  however,  some  grammatical  in- 
terpretations, in  which  he  occasionally  ven- 
tures to  depart  from  the  authority  of  all  who 
preceded  him.  For  example,  he  was  the  first 
to  maintain  that  in  John  v.  39,  s^suvars  is  to  be 
taken  not  imperatively  but  indicatively ;  also 
that  ihXoyeiv  and  ihyjx^iariTv  mean  the  same ;  and 
the  like.  Occasional  instances  of  the  same 
style  of  interpretation,  and  of  the  explanation 
of  phrases,  occur  in  his  other  works.  Semler 
has  given  extracts  from  this  work  in  his  Se- 
lecta  Cap.  Hist.  Ecc.  p.  285. 

XXVI.  We  now  proceed  from  the  Greek 
to  the  Latin  interpreters.  Among  these,  Je- 
rome'^  is  by  far  the  first,  being  the  only  one 


208  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

well  acquainted  with  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
languages.  He  illustrated  by  commentaries 
several  books  of  the  New  Testament,  princi- 
pally following  Origen ;  of  whom  he  says  in 
his  Praef,  ad  Qucest.  in  Genes,  that  we  would 
wish  to  have  Origen's  knowledge  of  Scripture, 
even  though  it  were  attended  by  all  the  un- 
popularity which  adhered  to  the  name  of  Ori- 
gen. This  appears  from  his  prefaces,  in  which 
he  names  the  authors  to  whom  he  is  indebted, 
and  especially  the  preface  to  the  Epistle  to 
the  Galatians.  He  rather  repeats  the  opinions 
of  others  than  gives  any  of  his  own,  and  on 
this  account  he  was  blamed  by  some ;  see  the 
Preface  to  his  Commentary  on  Jeremiah^  and 
contra  Ruf.  L.  1.  Still  he  sometimes  gives  his 
own  opinion  in  matters  critical,  grammatical, 
and  dogmatical.  Luther^  as  we  have  before 
mentioned,  thought  that  Jerome  interpreted 
better  in  his  other  works  than  in  his  commen- 
taries. 


■1  Jerome  interprets  better  in  his  Epistles  than  in  liis  com- 
mentaries, and  the  Old  Testament  better  than  the  New. 
Yet  there  are  some  valuable  observations  in  his  commen- 
taries. Thus,  Matt.  vi.  11,  he  renders  a^rov  i-riouffiov,  ac- 
cording to  the  Hebrew  "l^HD  QH/  ^^^^  ^^  pa)iem  crasti- 
num,  or  fnhcriim,  bread  for  the  morrow,  or  for  the  future  ; 
which  is  the  only  true  sense  of  the  phrase.     His  geograpbi- 


NEW  testament;  and  their  use.     209 

cal  notices  deserve  great  attention,  as  he  resided  long  in 
Palestine.  See  Oelrich's  Comment,  de  Scriptoribus  Eccl. 
Lat.  Lips.  1791,  P-  512,  seq.  [Relative  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment we  have  of  Jerome's^  Versions  of  some  books  of  the  N. 
T.  a  Commentary  on  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  and  some 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul;  and  Prologues  to  several  books,  in 
which  he  discusses  the  questions  relative  to  their  authors 
and  their  canonical  authority.  In  criticism  Jerome  may  be 
classed  with  Origen,  in  interpretation  with  Chrysostom. 
The  principal  editions  of  his  works,  are  the  Frankfort,  edited 
by  A.  Tribbechovlus,  1684,  xi.  vols.  fol.  The  Benedictine 
by  Martianay  and  Pouget,  Paris  1693—1786.  The 
Verona  1734 — 43,  and  the  Venetian  1766 — 72,  both  edited 
by  Dominic  Valarsius.^ 

XXVII.  There  are  others  who  maybe  con- 
sulted with  advantage  ;  of  whom  the  most  an- 
cient is  Hilary  of  Poitou  ( Pictavienses ) ,  a  com- 
mentary by  whom  on  Matthew  is  still  extant, 
literal,  but  somewhat  obscure,  as  all  his  writ- 
ings are,  and  borrowed  from  the  Greek  fathers, 
especially  from  Origen.  Superior  to  him  is 
another  Hilary  called  the  Deacon  (Hilarius 
DiaconusJ,  if  indeed  he  be  the  author  of  the 
commentary  on  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  which  is 
edited  with  the  works  of  Ambrose.  Such  is 
the  opinion  of  Blondel  in  his  Apol.  Hieron. 
p.  47,  48,  which  has  gained  many  followers ; 
while  the  contrary  opinion  is  maintained  by 
Petavius  in  his  Ecclesiastica  Hierarchia,  and  by 
Oudiniis   in    his   Comment,    de    Script.    Eccl. 


210  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

BlondeVa  opinion  seems   the    preferable    one, 
and  rests  upon  the  authority  of  Aucptstine^  who 
quotes,  as  from  Hilary^  expressions  found  in 
this  commentary.     The  traces  of  Pelagianism, 
to  which  heres)^  Hilary  was  certainly  opposed, 
are  either  dubious,  or  have  been   interpolated. 
The  Paris  editor  of  1529  suspected  this,  as  I 
judge  from  his  admonition  affixed  to  the  Epistle 
to   the    Romans.     Certainly   an   author   who 
says  (p.  m.  490,  a.  2)   "  that  we  have  sinned 
in  Adam,  in  massd  Adami^^  is  not  Pelagian  ;  so 
that  those  passages  which  seem  to  have  a  Pe- 
lagian tendency,  must  either  have  been  other- 
wise understood,  or  were  not  written  by  the 
author  of  the  commentary.     Whoever  was  its 
author,  he  appears  to  have  been  no  great  Greek 
scholar,  from  the  way  in  which  he  quotes  the 
Greek  text  of  Rom.  xii.  2 ;  he  sometimes  trifles 
very  foolishly  as  respecting  the  Prcctorium^  and 
Bishops  at  Phil.  i.  1 ;  and  yet  he  makes  many 
good  observations,  which   were  hardly  to  be 
expected   from  a  man  ignorant  of  Greek  and 
Hebrew."^ 

^  {Hillary  nf  Poitou,  of  tlie  fourth  centur\',  wrote  princi- 
pally in  the  allegorical  style,  and  therefore  can  he  of  little 
use  to  the  execretical  student.  His  works  were  published 
by  the  Benedictines,  Paris  1693.  At  ^''erona  17^0,  and  in 
a  more  commodious  form  by  F.  Oberthiirius  lUto,  3  vols. 


NEW  TESTAMENT;   AND  THEIR  USE.        211 

8vo.  Hilarius  Diacomcs,  from  tlie  fact  of  his  commentary 
being  inserted  among  the  works  of  Ambrose,  is  commonly 
called  Ambrosiaster,  or  the  false  Ambrose ;  and  by  this 
name  he  is  generally  referred  to  by  Griesbach  and  other 
critics.  The  commentary  is  upon  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul, 
and  the  text  is  given  not  in  Greek,  but  in  I^atin ;  and  this 
text  is  not  the  Vulgate,  but  one  of  the  numerous  Latin  ver- 
sions then  in  circulation,  and  is  consequently  referred  to  as 
an  independent  evidence  for  various  readings.  See  Mori 
Acr.  Acad.  II.  262.] 

XXVIII.  Nor  must  we  overlook  a  similar 
short  commentary  on  all  the  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul,  except  the  Hebrews,  by  Pelagius,  but 
erroneously  attributed  by  some  to  Jerome^ 
among  whose  works  it  is  published.  Cassio- 
dorus  in  his  Led.  Div.  cap.  8,  calls  this  com- 
mentary "  subtilissimum ;"  and  even  orthodox 
divines,  especially  those  of  later  times,  have 
not  scrupled  frequently  to  quote  it  f  although 
it  contains  the  seeds  of  its  author's  heretical 
opinions  respecting  original  sin,  and  other 
matters.  See  Vossii,  Hist.  Pelag.  i.  4,  and 
Noris.  Hist  Pelag.  i.  3. 

*  For  further  information  respecting  this  commentary  of 
Pelagius,  see  Walchii  Hist.  Hser.  T.  iv.  p.  547,  and  Shoe- 
nemann's  Bibliotheca  hist.  lit.  patrum  Latinorum,  T.  ii.  p. 
433. 

XXIX.  Had  Augustine  possessed  a  know- 


212  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

ledg-e  of  Greek  and  Hebrew,  commensurate  to 
the  greatness  and  acuteness  of  his  intellect, 
there  is  little  doubt  that  he  would  have  ex- 
celled all  other  commentators.*  As  it  was, 
being  more  skilled  in  dialectics  and  rhetoric 
than  in  the  languages  of  Scripture,  he  filled 
his  commentaries  with  allegories  and  dog- 
matic digressions,  some  indeed  very  good ; 
and  hunts  for  mysteries  in  the  signification  of 
words,  in  the  most  trifling  and  idle  manner. 
Sometimes,  however,  by  natural  sagacity,  he 
not  merely  adopts  the  good  interpretations  of 
preceding  commentators,  but  spontaneously 
discovers  the  truth,  especially  in  his  dogmatic 
books.  This  style  of  interpretation,  as  it  need- 
ed no  accuracy  of  learning,  but  depended  more 
on  logical  reasoning,  and  used  the  words  of 
the  Latin  version  in  their  ordinary  sense,  re- 
ferring every  thing  to  the  analogy  of  faith^ 
found,  in  the  succeeding  ages,  which  possessed 
but  little  learning,  more  admirers  and  follow- 
ers than  the  grammatical  style  of  Jerome,  The 
succeeding  Latin  interpreters,  therefore,  down 
to  the  time  of  the  revival  of  letters,  depend 
entirely  upon  Augustine;  whose  interpreta- 
tions they  laboriously  collected,  not  only  from 
his  commentaries,  but  also  from  his  other 
writings,  especially  those  directed  against  the 


NEW  testament;  and  their  use.     213 

Arians,    Pelagians,    and    Manichseans.       This 
was  especially  done  by  Thomas  Aquinas  in  the 
Catena  Aurea  ;  but,  upon  the  whole,  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Bible  in  the  Western  Church 
down  to  the  Reformation,  was  entirely  Augus- 
tinian.     For  the  attempts  made   by  the  cele- 
brated Anglo-Saxons,  Bede  SindAIcuin,  to  avail 
themselves  of  the    Greek  commentators,    es- 
pecially   Chrysostom ;     and    by   Nicholas    de 
Lyra<)  and  Paidiis  Bruc/ensis^  his  continuator,  to 
apply  a  knowledge  of  Hebrew  to  the  eluci- 
dation of  Scripture,  though  by  no  means  con- 
temptible, were  still  few  and  of  little  import- 
ance in  their  results.     And  even  in  the  age  im- 
mediately following  the  Reformation,  the  best 
theologians,  with  Luther  at  their  head,  being 
accustomed  to  this  style  of  interpretation,  and 
not  possessing  what  we  should  now  reckon  an 
accurate  knowledge  of   Greek   and  Hebrew, 
placed  a  very  high  value  upon  the  interpreta- 
tions  of  Augustine.     Thus    Victor  Strigelius, 
an  elegant  scholar,  and  to  be  reckoned  among 
the  best  interpreters  of  his  age,  does  not  hesi- 
tate, in  his  Loci  Theologici^  p.  iii.  p.  29,  to  say, 
nullus   ex  Patrihus   melior   interpres  est,  quam 
Augustinus.     None   of  the  Fathers  interprets 
Scripture  better  than  Augustine.     Of  the  com- 
mentaries of  this  father,  that  upon  Galatians 


214  THE   INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

is  the  best,  as  it  is  less  allegorical  and  more 
grammatical  than  the  others. 

*  [Opinion  is  now,  however,  much  more  divided  respect- 
ing the  merits  of  Augxistine  as  an  interpreter.  Ernesti, 
it  will  be  seen,  fairly  balances  his  merits  and  demerits  ; 
Morus,  (Acroases  Acad.  II.  267,)  holds  that  all  that  is  good 
in  his  works  is  borrowed,  and  that  his  only  merit  was  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  superior  learning  of  Jerome ;  while 
his  reporter  and  editor  FAchstadt  gives  to  Augustine  the 
merited  praise  of  being  the  first,  or  nearly  the  first,  who 
laid  down  Hermeneutical  rules,  in  his  doctrina  Christiana. 
The  principal  works  of  Augustine,  in  reference  to  exegesis, 
are,  De  consensu  Evangelistarum,  in  which  he  gave  the 
first  example  of  the  useful  class  of  books  called  Harmonies  : 
Doctrina  Christiana  mentioned  above  :  Qucsstiones  Evange- 
licce  on  Matthew  and  Luke  :  and  Eocpositions  of  Romans  and 
Galatians.  The  fame  of  Augustine  in  our  days,  is  that  of 
a  dogmatist  and  controversialist,  rather  than  of  a  critic  or 
interpreter.] 


XXX.  There  is  little  use  in  speaking  of 
the  other  Latin  interpreters  [of  the  middle 
ages],  or  of  the  glosses,  of  which  that  which 
goes  by  the  name  of  Oi^dinaria  was  composed 
by  Rahan  Maurus^^  or  rather  by  Walafrid 
Straho  from  the  commentaries  of  Rahan;  the 
other  which  is  called  Interlinear  is  ^  by  Anaelm 
of  Canterbury. 

"  Raban  Maurus,   was  first  Abbot  of  Fulda   and    tben 


NEW  testament;  and  their  use.     215 

Bishop  of  Mentz.  He  was  a  disciple  of  Alcuin,  and  wrote 
a  Catena  of  the  Fathers  on  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  and 
the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  See  Simon's  Hist.  Crit.  T.  iii. 
p.  25.  [Walafrid  Strabo  has  been  kept  in  notice  as  a  wit- 
ness in  favour  of  1  John  v.  7-  See  Porson's  Letters  357, 
and  Quarterly  Review,  vol.  xxvi.  p.  336.] 

XXXI.  When  literature  and  then  religion 
had  been  restored  and  reformed,  the  method  of 
using  and  expounding  the  Scriptures  was  gra- 
dually improved ;  though  all  did  not  follow  the 
same  course,  nor  did  the  same  system  prevail 
in  every  age.  For  some  interpreted  gramma- 
tically, confining  themselves  entirely  to  the 
explanation  of  words  ;  others  attended  to  sen- 
timents and  dogmas ;  and  others  again  united 
these  two  objects.  At  first,  the  first  of  these 
systems  had  the  preference,  and  then  the  se- 
cond, to  the  almost  entire  exclusion  of  the  first ; 
while  latterly,  the  two  methods  have  been  ge- 
nerally blended  in  the  same  commentaries. 
Some  writers  have  adopted  a  new  course,  and 
have  employed  themselves  in  writing  observa- 
tions^ that  is,  illustrations  and  explanations  of 
the  most  difficult  passages  of  Scripture  only. 

XXXII.  The  first  method  was  pursued  by 
Laur.  Valla,  J.  Camerarius,  Flacius,  Nic.  Zegerus, 
R.  Stephen  and  Castellio,  to  whom  may  be  added, 
Stunica  and  Lucas  Brugensis.  Of  a  later  age, 
and  nearer  to  our  time  were  Pricceiis,  Erasmus 


216  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

Schmii,  Heinsius^  L.  de  Dieu^  Mill,    Georgia 
Bengel,  Wetstein,  Heummm,  &c.^ 

^  To  the  former  class  we  may  add,  Vatablus  and  Drusius, 
to  the  latter  Michaelis,  Rosenm'uUcr,  Kopjie,  Hetzel,  Schleus- 
ner^  Pott,  and  others.  [Z.  Valla,  who  lived  before  the  re- 
formation, about  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century,  em- 
ployed himself  in  correcting  the  Vulgate.  His  Annotationes 
in  N.  T.  ex  diversoo-um  utr'msque  Ibtguce,  Gracce  et  Latirue, 
codicum  collatione,  was  published  under  the  care  of  Erasmus 
at  Paris  1505,  and  his  De  collatione  iV.  T.  Lib.  t.  i.  cum 
notis  J.  Rivii,  at  Amsterdam  IG38.  Flacius  was  author  of 
Clavis  ScripturoB  SacrcB,  (edited  by  Suicer  1695,)  the  first 
part  of  which  is  a  sort  of  Scripture  glossary,  the  latter  a 
collection  of  exegetical  rules.  The  works  of  Camerarius 
relative  to  the  N.  T.  are  Notatio  figurarum  Nov.  Test.  Lip. 
1572,  and  Commentarius  in  Nov.  Test.  Nic.  Zegerus,  wrote 
Scholia  in  omnes  N.  T.  libros,  Cologne  1553.  Priccsus,  Com- 
mentarii  in  varios  N.  T.  libros,  Lond.  1660.  E.  Schmid, 
Concordantia  N.  T.  1638,  and  a  corrected  edition  of  Beza's 
version  1658.  The  others  mentioned  in  this  chapter  are 
well  known.  For  a  view  of  their  works  and  merits  the 
reader  may  consult  Simon.'\ 

XX  XI 11.  Of  the  other  class,  which,  with- 
out entirely  neg'lecting  verbal  interpretation, 
still  attended  more  especially  to  sentiments  and 
dogmas,  are  Luther,  Melancthon  (See  below, 
§  49.)  Hunnius,  Baldwin,  and  others,  whose 
works  are  now  nearly  forgotten  :  and  out  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,  P.  Martyr,  Calvin,  Pelli- 
canus,  Cocceius,  and  his  followers,  Larnpe,  Tur- 


NEW  testament;  and  their  use.     217 

retin,  and  others,  whom  it  is  unnecessary  far- 
ther to  enumerate.^ 


y  Much  matter  connected  with  the  subject  of  this  section 
may  be  found  in  Semler's  Versuch  die  gemeinniitzige  Aus- 
legung  des  N.  T.  zu  befordern.  p.  195,  seq.  And  Meyer's 
Geschichte  der  Schrifterklarung.  [Morus  p.  282,  seq.,  and 
Home's  Introd.  II.  745.  Of  Luther'' s  commentaries,  those 
on  Galatians  and  the  Psalms  are  most  celebrated  ;  Init  his 
greatest  work  is  his  admirable  version  of  both  Testaments 
into  German.  Calvin  wrote  commentaries  on  almost  all 
the  books  of  Scripture.  Setting  aside  his  particular  views 
as  to  the  decrees,  his  interpretations  are  acute  and  judicious, 
and  fonn  the  most  valuable  portion  of  Poole's  Synopsis.] 


^  XXXIV.  Of  the  mixed  method,  which  treats 
both  of  words  and  of  sentiments,  but  briefly, 
except  where  a  longer  explanation  is  absolutely 
necessary,  the  first  specimen  was  given  by 
Erasmus^  whose  Annotations  are  indeed  the 
earliest  example  of  good  interpretation  ;  and 
upon  them,  as  a  foundation,  all  succeeding  in- 
terpreters of  any  merit  have  built  their  labours. 
It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  he  has 
fallen  into  many  errors  from  his  ignorance  of 
Hebrew.  With  him  may  be  joined  Victor 
Strigelius,  less  famed,  indeed,  and  even  un- 
known to  R.  Simon,  but  in  many  respects  su- 
perior to  Erasmus,  and  more  useful  to  students. 


218  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

Strigelius  does  not,  like  Erasmus,  comment 
upon  the  Latin  version,  but  upon  the  original 
Greek ;  and  applies  to  its  illustration  a  know- 
ledge not  only  of  Greek  but  also  of  Hebrew, 
in  a  manner  much  superior  to  Erasmus.  Some- 
times he  treats  of  doctrines,  and  is  in  both  de- 
partments more  consistent  and  equable  than 
Erasmus,  who  indulges  in  digressions,  and 
sometimes  in  declamations.  In  one  point  he 
is  inferior,  namely,  in  his  total  omission  of 
Criticism;  whether  he  did  this  purposely  or 
not,  I  am  unable  to  say.  His  work,  under  the 
name  of  Hypomnemata^  was  published  at  Leip- 
zig, 1565. 

XXXV.  Others  soon  followed;  of  whom 
the  chief  was  Beza^  who  made  good  use  of  the 
aids  to  interpretation,  which  were  accessible 
at  that  time,  namely,  of  manuscripts  of  the 
Greek  and  Hebrew  Scriptures,  of  the  Septua- 
gint  version,  &c.  Certainly,  in  all  that  re- 
lates to  the  explanation  of  words  and  phrases, 
he  had  no  equal  till  Grotius  appeared;  who  in 
such  matters  stands  far  above  all  other  com- 
mentators ;  and  is  the  first  who,  furnished  with 
the  requisites  of  talent  and  learning,  showed, 
by  examples,  the  proper  method  of  applying 
the  Septuagint,  as  well  as  other  Jewish  and 
eastern  writings,  to  the  interpretation  of  the 


NEW  testament;  and  their  use.     219 

New  Testament.  So  that  Turretin  rightly 
judg-es  him  to  be  the  first  of  commentators,  as 
far  as  relates  to  the  phraseology  of  Scripture ; 
in  the  explanation  of  the  doctrine  he  indulges 
his  own  opinions,  and  often  wanders  from  the 
truth.^ 

[^  Dr.  Ammon  here  observes,  that  Grotius  has  been  un- 
reasonably abused  by  Calovius,  and  charged  with  Arianism, 
Socinianism,  and  Atheism.  He  recommends  his  interpre- 
tations to  younger  students,  "  postquam  grammaticas  dif- 
ficultates  superaverunt  :"  but  the  grammatical  difficulties, 
in  Ernesti's  sense  of  the  word  grammatical,  are  the  verv 
difficulties  which  Grotius  has  been  most  successful  in  re- 
moving. He  instances  Grotius'  remarks  on  John  vi.  17, 
as  to  the  true  situation  of  Betlisaida,  and  refers  to  Herder^s 
Briefe,  &c.  Letters  on  Theology,  T.  ii.  p.  357,  seq.] 

XXXVI.  Succeeding  commentators,  even 
those  who  blame  Grotius,  have  borrowed  from 
him,  especially  in  the  grammatical  portion  of 
their  work,  as  the  English  commentators, 
Whithy  and  Hammond^^  and  also  JLe  Clerc^ 
Lerifant  and  Beausohre^  Calmet^  and  many  others 
who  have  written  on  single  books  or  passages. 
So  that  Grotius  may  fairly  be  reckoned  as 
standing  at  the  head  of  modern  interpreters. 

*  Whitby,  iu  his  Examen  Criticum,  and  Hammond  in  his 
observations  on  the  New  Testament,  which  being  rendered 
into  Latin  by  Leclerc,  were  reprinted  at  Frankfort  1714, 


220  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

[The  Examen  Criticum,  as  its  name  imports,  is  entirely  cri- 
tical, and  not  in  any  degree  grammatical.  Ernesti  refers 
not  to  it,  but  to  the  paraphrase  and  commentary,  the  most 
popular  of  English  exegetical  works.  Amnion's  error  in 
this  place  is  noticed  by  Eichst'ddt  on  IMorus,  II.  p.  303.  The 
reader  of  Ernesti  may  have  some  difficulty  in  recognizing 
Lenfant  and  Beausobre  under  the  names  of  Infans  and 
Bellosobrius.  ] 

XXXV II.  Some,  instead  of  writing  con- 
tinuous commentaries,  in  which  it  must  be 
necessary  to  repeat  much  that  had  been  said 
before,  hav^e  employed  themselves  upon  the 
illustration  of  words  or  phrases  in  some  or  in 
all  of  the  books  of  Scripture.  Of  these  \vriters 
some  are  merely  grammatical ;  and  may  be 
divided  into, — 1st,  those  who  have  used  only 
the  Greek  writers,  such  are  Lamh.  Bos,  Eisner, 
Alhertus,  Raphelius,  and  Kypke  ;  — 2d,  those 
who  have  drawn  their  illustrations  principally 
from  Oriental  sources,  as  the  two  Capetli, 
Drusius  in  his  Prseterita,  Cameron,  Lic/litfoot, 
and  Schoetr/en ; — 3d,  those  who  have  used  the 
Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament  as  Keu- 
chen. 


^  To  these  may  be  added  Valckenaer^s  adnotationes,  &c. 
in  loca  quaedam  N.  T.  178G,  printed  at  the  end  of  Valckenaer 
and  Hemsterhuis  Orationes,  and  Klosii  Examen  of  the  same 
work  1789.     J.  G.  F.  I fezel  has  attempted  to  digest  into 


NEW  testament;  and  their  use.       -221 

one  work  the  observations  of  former  writers  ;  but  hitherto 
the  work  has  not  succeeded.  [In  the  way  of  illustrations, 
L,  Bos  wrote,  Exercitationes  Philologicaa,  &c-  Franequer 
1713.  Eisner,  observationes  sacra  in  N.  T.  libros  Traj.  ad 
Rh-  1720,  28.  Albertus,  Obs.  philologicae  in  sacros  N.  T.  li- 
hros  Lugd.  Bat.  1728.  Raphelms,  Adnotationes  philologicte 
in  N.  T.  ex.  XenophontecollectEe,  Hamb.  1709,  ex  Polybio  et 
Arriano  1714  ;  ex  Herodoto  1731.  Kypke,  a  much  inferior 
writer  to  those  just  mentioned,  wrote,  Obs.  Sacrse  in  N.  T. 
libros  1755.  With  Raphelius,  as  having  used  only  one  Greek 
author  at  a  time,  may  be  classed  C.  F.  Munthius,  obs.  phi- 
lologicse,  &c.  ex  Diodoro  Siculo  collectae,  1755.  Ottius  and 
Krebsius,  who  have  drawn  their  observations  from  Josephus. 
Loesner  and  Kuhn  from  Philo  Judasus.  See  chap  viii.  §  8, 
9,  10.  For  notices  of  the  Capelli,  &c.  see  ch.  viii.  §  3. 
Keuchen''s  observations  are  to  be  found  in  his  Annotata  in 
N.  T.  1689,  re-edited  by  Albertus  1755.] 

XXXVIII.  Some  have  selected  the  more 
difficult  passages  out  of  all  the  books  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  illustrated  them  from  any  source 
which  afforded  aid ;  with  occasional  attention 
to  the  doctrine,  so  as  to  clear  it  from  the  mis- 
representations of  heretical  interpreters :  such 
are  TaJiiovius,  Hackspann^  Spanheim,  Weren- 
fels,  Deylmg^  CEder^^  and  others. 

"  Tarnovius  in  Exercitationibus  Biblicis.  HarJcspann, 
Miscellanea  in  N.  T.  Werenfels  observations  in  N.  T. 
Deyling,  observationes,  &c,  3  vols.  1720 — 36.  Oeder,  ob- 
servationes in  N.  T.  To  these  may  be  added  the  works 
of  Morus,  Seiler,  Noesselt,  Knapp,  Reinhardy  [KnatcJibiilL] 


222  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

XXXIX.  Another  class  of  writers  have 
strung  together  whatever  has  been  said  on 
passages  of  Scripture  by  preceding  interpre- 
ters. Of  this  class  are  JValceus,  author  of 
Annotations  on  New  Testament,  of  little  merit ; 
Poll  Synopsis,  abridged  from  the  Critici  Sacri, 
and  J.  C.  Woljii  curee  Philol.  and  Crit.,**  who, 
however,  sometimes  gives  his  own  opinion  also. 
The  last  mentioned  work  is  more  valuable  and 
copious  than  the  others,  and  yet  not  always 
accurate.  From  this  a  new  work  has  been 
formed,  which  has  many  select  notes  from  the 
English  critics  :  and  which,  first  published  in 
French,  has  now  been  translated  into  Ger- 
man, and  published  with  the  notes  of  the 
learned  Bruker  in  8  vols,  4to. 

*  WalcBus  published  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  with  Scholia 
and  some  annotations  of  his  own.  Poll  Synopsis  is  an 
abridgement  of  the  Critici  Sacri  [whom  Ernesti  calls  the 
English  critics.]  Woljius'  Curae  is  fuller  of  the  titles  of 
books  than  of  interpretation ;  yet  he  subjoins  the  argu- 
ments of  the  books  to  which  he  refers.  [The  translator  has 
never  seen  the  last  work  referred  to  by  Ernesti.  Noesselt 
considers  it  as  founded  not  on  Woljius  but  on  the  Synopsis, 
and  as  in  fact  a  German  translation  of  that  work  :  with  ad- 
ditional notes  on  the  Old  Testament  by  Teller,  S.  J.  Baum- 
garten,  and  Ditelman,  and  on  the  New  Testament  by 
Bruker,  the  whole  occupying  19  vols.] 

XL.  Finally,  collections  of  entire  commen- 


NEW  TESTAMENT  ;  AND  THEIR  USE.       223 

taries  have  been  formed :  such  are  the  Bihlia 
magna  and  maxima,  published  at  Paris  in  the 
seventeenth  century ;  in  which  the  most  pro- 
lix and  useless  commentaries,  that  of  Meno- 
chius,  for  instance,  are  inserted.  Superior  to 
this  is  the  collection  which,  under  the  name 
of  Critici  Anglicani  was  compiled  by  Pearson^ 
printed  at  London  in  seven  volumes,  and  re- 
printed at  Frankfort,  with  two  additional  vo- 
lumes. Even  in  this  some  commentaries  are 
admitted  which  it  would  have  been  better  to 
reject,  as  those  of  Clarius  and  some  others.® 

^  [The  Biblia  Magna  by  John  cle  la  Haye  published  at 
Paris  1643,  in  five  vols.  fol.  :  and  the  Maxima  by  the  same 
editor  1660,  in  nineteen  folios.  See  Moms,  II.  p.  335,  and 
Le  Long,  Bibl.  Sac.  iv.  396.  The  next  work  mentioned  by 
Ernesti,  was  published  not  under  the  name  of  Critici  Angli- 
cani, but  of  Critici  Sacri.  It  was  reprinted,  with  additions, 
at  Amstei'dam  in  nine  vols.  !  98.  The  Frankfort  edition 
by  Gurtler  appeared  in  1696,  and  two  supplementary  vols, 
in  1700  :  these  last  contain  many  useful  and  rare  tracts  on 
philology  and  biblical  antiquities.] 

XLI.  But  enough  has  now  been  said  of  in- 
terpreters, and  the  different  classes  into  which 
they  may  be  divided  :  it  remains  that  1  should 
offer  the  student  some  advice  as  to  the  proper 
use  to  be  made  of  their  works.  And  this  use 
is   twofold, — the  one  properly  relating-  to  the 


•2*24  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

method  of  rightly  interpreting,  which,  in  my 
opinion,  is  the  most  important ;  the  other  to 
the  interpretation  of  single  words  and  sen- 
tences. 

XLII.  The  student  of  theology  ought,  in 
the  first  place,  to  fix  upon  some  one,  or,  at 
most,  two  of  the  most  celebrated  interpreters 
of  Scripture,  and  those  of  the  class  which  we 
have  before  described  as  grammatical ;  and 
these  are  to  be  preferred,  because  the  true 
sense  of  the  subject  must  be  derived  from  the 
true  signification  of  words.  He  ought,  by  the 
repeated  and  careful  perusal  of  this  interpreter, 
to  form  himself  by  degrees  to  his  manner  of 
reasoning :  and  while  he  is  thus  occupied,  he 
ought  only  occasionally,  or  of  necessity,  to 
consult  other  commentators.  Who  those  are 
that  ought  to  be  consulted,  may  be  collected 
from  the  sections  immediately  preceding.  Of 
the  commentaries  of  Grotius  I  would,  in  this 
point  of  view,  especially  recommend  that  upon 
Matthew  as  the  most  carefully  written.^ 

[^Students  in  our  islan(f  must  usually  follow  the  guidance 
of  their  authorized  instructors,  and  Whitby^  Macknight, 
Campbell,  Elsley  and  Slade,  will  in  general  be  the  text 
books  to  which  they  will  be  directed.  Afterwards  they  may 
study  more  minute  and  accurate  commentators,  as  Tittman 
ou  John,  Kubioel  on  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  RoseumuUer\i 


NEW  testament;  and  their  use.     225 

Scholia,  Koppe  on  Romans  and  Galatians,  Tholuck  on  Ro- 
mans, &c.  Perhaps  for  a  book  of  fundamental  studv 
RosenmuUer  may  be  i-ecommeuded  in  preference  to  any 
other.  ] 

XLIII.   With  respect  to  other  commenta- 
tors, it  will  be  necessary  that  the  student  should 
know  to  which  class  each  belongs:  whether  he 
explains  words  or  doctrines ;  what  sources  of 
illustration  he  has  employed ;  and  how  he  has 
employed  them.     This  knowledge  w^ill  enable 
him  to  turn  at  once  to  that  w^ork  where  he  is 
most    likely  to  find   any  particular    difficulty 
solved,  and  will  save  him  the  trouble  of  seek- 
ing in  vain  through  large  books  for  that  which 
he  could  have  no  good  reason  to  suppose  they 
would  contain.     If  he  has  not  time  and  means 
to  acquire  this  knowledge  by  an  examination 
of  the  books   themselves,   I  would  advise  him 
to   study  the   Histoire  Critique  dii  N.    T.,  by 
It.  Simon  ;  who,  though  he  may  sometimes  err, 
has  explained  the  characters  and  merits  of  the 
interpreters,   with  more    accuracy  and  judg- 
ment than  any  author  with  whose  works  I  am 
acquainted.     Thus,  while  he  j  ustly  blames  the 
sectarian   fury   of  the  Jesuit    Maldonatus,  he 
gives  him  credit  for  his  Hebrew  learning,  and 
for  his  diligent  collection  of  illustrations  from 
the  Fathers.* 


226  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

^  [Ammon  here  sneers  at  the  notion  of  any  vahie  beiiiff 
set  upon  the  commentaries  of  ]\Ialdonatus,  and  recommends 
in  preference  those  of  Grotius,  RosenmuUer,  Paulus,  and 
Kuinoel.  But  the  question  now  is  not  respecting  a  com- 
mentary for  fundamental  use,  but  for  occasional  consulta- 
tion. Thus  we  may  recommend  Lightfoot  to  be  consulted, 
in  any  difficulties  respecting  Jewish  ceremonies,  customs,  or 
opinions,  without  being  understood  to  praise  him  as  a  com- 
mentator generally.] 

XLIV.  The  student  will  find  it  a  useful 
plan  to  note  the  difficulties  in  the  several  books 
of  Scripture,  respecting  which  the  opinions  of 
commentators  are  divided,  those  in  which  there 
is  any  remarkable  diversity  of  readings,  and 
those  respecting  which  we  cannot  arrive  at 
any  satisfactory  conclusion.  When  any  com- 
mentary comes  in  our  way,  it  will  then  be 
easy  to  turn  to  these  passages,  and  see  whether 
it  contains  anything  new,  useful  or  satisfac- 
tory upon  them.*^ 

^  As  for  example,  3Iatt.  v.  3,  Mark  ix.  49,  Acts  xxvii. 
12,  Gal.  iii.  20,  Col.  i.  15. 

XLV.  He  who  wishes  to  become  a  good 
interpreter  ought  also  to  peruse  entire  com- 
mentaries, one,  of  course,  at  a  time.  For,  not 
to  mention  that  useful  remarks  and  informa- 
tion were  often  inserted  by  those  who  are  fond 
of  shewing  their  learning,  in  places  where  we 


NEW  testament;  and  their  use.     227 

sliould  little  expect  to  find  them,  we  may  thus 
be  often  taught  the  true  sense  of  passages, 
respecting  whose  meaning  we  entertained  no 
doubt ;  having  taken  up  in  our  early  years,  and 
-ever  since  retained  a  false  notion  of  them,  de- 
rived from  the  ordinary  books  of  early  religious 
instruction.^ 

'  When  the  student  is  sufficiently  acquainted  with  Greek 
grammar,  let  him  read  the  New  Testament  with  the  aid 
of  a  good  lexicon.  Let  him  then  repeat  the  perusal  with  a 
good  version,  and  then  take  some  one  good  commentary,  as 
that  of  Grot'ms  or  Koppe :  after  having  well  digested  this, 
let  him  consult  others  carefully  and  judiciously,  not  neglect- 
ing at  the  same  time  the  proper  use  of  other  critical  aid.s. 

XLVI.  I  v/ould  advise  the  student  to  study 
the  Greek  commentators  above  mentioned, 
beginning  w^ith  Chrysostom,  and  to  compare 
them  with  one  another.  They  are  neither 
very  numerous  nor  so  long,  as  to  cost  much 
labour  or  time  to  those  who  have  made  some 
advances  in  studies  of  this  kind.  And  the 
course  proposed  has  this  advantage,  among 
many  others,  that  whereas,  the  Latin  com- 
mentators, and  those  of  our  own  country  since 
the  reformation,  have  all  formed  their  inter- 
pretations, either  upon  the  Latin  or  the  ver- 
nacular version,  and  that  in  cases  where  they 


2*28  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

have  manifestly  departed  from  the  Greek  ori- 
ginal, and  have  erred,  either  by  translating 
etymologically,  or  by  following  the  Latin 
or  vernacular  usages,  the  student  will  thus 
learn  to  discover  the  origin  of  these  errors, 
and  to  understand  the  word  of  God  more  cor- 
rectly; and  will,  at  the  same  time,  be  unde- 
ceived as  to  his  supposition,  that  the  vulgar 
interpretation,  as  being  always  ancient,  must 
necessarily  be  orthodox.  Of  the  errors  here 
alluded  to,  some  examples  have  already  been 
given,  to  which  we  may  add  the  explanations 
that  have  been  given  of  icr/Xa/x/Sai/sra/,  in  Heb. 
ii.  16.  Some  recent  interpreters  have  rendered 
this,  he  brings  assistance  to,  he  protects,  and  have, 
by  so  doing,  almost  incurred  the  suspicion  of 
heresy,  from  the  supposed  novelty  of  their  in- 
terpretation. Whereas,  if  we  consult  the 
Greek  commentators,  we  shall  find  that  this 
was  the  ancient  interpretation  of  the  whole 
Greek  church ;  and  that  our  vulgar  reading 
is  a  novelty,  borrowed  from  the  Latin  inter- 
preters, who,  taking  the  etymological  render- 
ing of  the  Vulgate,  assumit,  in  its  Latin  sense, 
have  supposed  it  to  refer  to  the  incarnation. 
Many  such  instances  might  be  adduced,  of 
which   he  who   considers  himself  qualified  to 


NEW  TESTAMENT  ;  AND  THEIR  USE.      229 

interpret    Scripture    ought    not  to    be    igno- 
rant.^ 

[^  Ail  modern  interpreters  of  any  scholarship  understand 
the  text  as  Ernesti  does  ;  and  the  rendering,  "  he  took  not 
on  him  the  nature,"  is  one  of  the  greatest  errors  in  our  au- 
thorized version.  Mr.  Stuart,  ad  loc.  says,  the  Christian 
Fathers  have  applied  it  to  the  assumption  of  an  angelic 
nature  :  but  he  must  mean  to  limit  this  assertion  to  the 
Latin  Fathers  alone  ;  whose  interpretations  have  had  much 
more  influence  in  dogmatic  theology  than  those  of  the 
Greek  Fathers,  being  in  fact  much  more  accessible  and  in- 
telligible to  the  ordinary  theologian.  ] 

XLVII.  In  reading  commentaries,  either 
ancient  or  modern,  the  student  must  be  care- 
ful, whenever  he  meets  wath  a  good  satisfac- 
tory interpretation,  to  examine  by  what  pro- 
cess the  interpreter  arrived  at  it ;  and  espe- 
cially ought  he  to  do  this,  when  the  passage  is 
remarkable  for  its  importance  or  its  difficulty. 
On  the  other  hand,  when  he  meets  with  inter- 
pretations palpably  false  or  absurd,  he  ought 
to  examine  the  principles  and  course  of  rea- 
soning which  have  conducted  the  interpreter 
into  error ;  and  thus,  his  mind  will  be  disci- 
plined by  practice  to  the  investigation  of  truth, 
and  the  avoiding  of  error  .^ 

'  Thus  in  Col.  i.  16,  interpreters  would  not  have  referred 
^^ovovs,  &c.   to  political  governors,  had  they  been  aware 


230  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

of  the  Jewish  doctrine   respecting   the   various   ranks  of 
angels. 

XLVIIl.  In  choosing  among  different  clas- 
ses of  interpreters,  we  ought  to  bestow  but 
little  of  our  time  upon  those  who  have  brought 
nothing  but  classical  Greek  literature  to  the 
illustration  of  the  New  Testament;  for  little 
advantage  can  reasonably  be  expected  from 
them.  Even  in  the  annotations  of  Eisner^ 
which  some  are  disposed  to  place  in  the  very 
first  rank,  I  do  not  remember  to  have  met  with 
more  than  ten  observations  of  real  practiced 
value :  the  rest  being  more  suited  to  enrich  a 
Greek  lexicon  than  to  illustrate  or  explain 
the  New  Testament.  Those  interpreters  are 
of  more  use  who  explain  what  is  ambiguous  or 
obscure  from  Hebrew  literature,  and  the  Greek 
version  of  the  Old  Testament ;  who  support 
the  true  reading,  and  throw  light  upon  the 
statements  and  doctrine  of  the  sacred  books,*" 

"'  [The  words  of  Ernesti  here  rendered  statements  and 
doctrine,  are  res  et  sententias.  The  translator  has  through- 
out experienced  much  difficulty  in  determining  the  sense 
affixed  by  Ernesti  to  the  very  indeterminate  word  res  ;  here 
he  understands  it  to  mean  statements  of  fact,  allusions  to 
material  things,  customs  and  habits.  For  examples  of  this 
sort  of  illustration,  see  chap.  viii.  §  4,  note  m.  and  generally 
the  writings  of  Liyhtfoot  and  Schoetgen.] 


NEW  testament;  and  their  use.     231 

XLIX.  Nor  are  these  commentaries  entirely 
to  be  neglected,  which  treat  principally  of  dog- 
mas ;  not  because  they  afford  much  aid  in  the 
interpretation  of  Scripture,  but  because  they 
may  increase  our  knowledge  of  doctrines,  which 
are  often  more  fully  and  carefully  discussed  in 
commentaries,  than  in  treatises  professedly 
dogmatic.  And  they  may  contain  good  inter- 
pretations even  of  a  grammatical  character, 
such  as  sometimes  occur  in  the  commentaries 
of  Melancthon.  In  these  the  author  occasion- 
ally intimates  that  the  sense  may  be  better 
cleared  up  by  a  grammatical  explanation,  found- 
ed on  the  usages  of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew 
languages,  than  by  scholastic  subtleties.  The 
student  may  refer  to  his  remarks  on  1  Cor. 
XV.  p.  299,  where  there  is  a  fine  example  of 
explanation  from  the  Hebrew ;  and  to  Coloss. 
iii.  14,  where  he  gives  a  good  explanation  of 
the  words ^rst-born  and  thrones.^ 

"It  cannot,  however,  be  denied  that  Melancthon  in  his 
commentary  writes  more  frequently  as  a  theologian  than  as 
a  grammarian  ;  see  especially  his  remarks  upon  original  sin 
in  his  commentary  on  Rom.  v. 

L.  Those  who  are  to  expound  the  Scrip- 
ture from  the  pulpit  or  in  lecture  rooms,  may 
also,  from  such  commentaries,   learn   how  to 


232  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  THE 

manage  doctrinal  questions,  either  in  a  popular 
or  in  a  sciiolastic  manner."  For,  though  in 
the  theological  school  we  must  prefer  an  in- 
terpreter who  attends  principally  to  the  true 
and  exact  meaning  of  the  words  of  Scripture, 
and  treats  only  briefly  of  such  facts  and  doc- 
trines as  occur ;  yet  sometimes  it  may  be  pro- 
per to  enter  more  fully  into  the  examination 
of  points  of  peculiar  difficulty,  and  peculiar 
importance.  Of  this  style  there  cannot  be 
found  a  better  example  than  TurretirCs  Exer- 
citations  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  though 
a  posthumous  publication.  I  would  also  re- 
commend Melancthon's  Commentary  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  which  is  not  too 
prolix,  and  was  a  peculiar  favourite  with 
Luther.P 

"  He  who  proposes  to  become  a  teacher  of  reli^on,  must 
recollect  that  in  pulpit  discourses,  the  interpretation  of 
.Scripture  ought  not  to  he  restricted  within  hermeneutical 
rules,  hut  ratlier  accommodated  to  purposes  of  edification  ; 
of  which  accommodation  examples  may  be  found  in  the  best 
pulpit  orators.  [It  appears  to  the  translator,  that  if  her- 
meneutical rules  are  not  to  guide  the  preacher,  it  is  scarcely 
worth  his  while  to  study  them  ;  and  that  he  who  publicly 
attaches  a  meaning  to  a  text  which  he  does  not  believe  to 
be  its  meaning,  is  a  wicked  impostor.  Amnion  in  his  notes 
frequently  hints  at  these  pious  frauds,  and  even  Ernesti 
sometimes  appears  to  think  that  there  ought  to  be  an 
esoteric  and  exoteric  interpretation  of  Scripture.     From  the 


NEW  testament;  and  their  use.     233 

commentaries  mentioned  in  the  text,  if  they  be  good  of  their 
kind,  we  may  learn  how  to  draw  practical  inferences  from 
statements  of  doctrine,  or  from  narratives  of  fact ;  and  this 
is  an  important  part  of  the  office  of  a  preacher.] 

[P  Amraon  introduces  a  long  note  in  this  place,  the  purport 
of  which  is  to  shew  the  necessity  of  attending  to  the  histo- 
rico-dogmatic  interpretation  of  Scripture.  But  as  his  views 
on  this  subject  are  highly  objectionable,  and  as  an  examina- 
tion and  refutation  of  them  would  take  up  much  more  room 
than  can  here  be  afforded,  the  translator  omits  it.  The 
works  on  the  subject  to  which  he  refers  are,  Storr^s  disser- 
tation, Desensu  historico,  Tubingen  1778,  ^eeV's  Dissertatio 
de  Interpretatione  Historica,  Lips.  1788,  Semler's  Versuch 
die  gemeinniitzige  Auslegung  des  N.  T.  zu  befordern, 
p.  237,  seq.  and  BretscJmeider^s  Historisch-dogmatische 
Auslegung  des  N.  T.  Lips.  1806.] 


234  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 


CHAPTER  X. 

ON  THE  USE  OF  GENERAL    INFORMATION.** 

I.  Since  the  object  of  interpretation  is  tbe  ex- 
amination and  explanation  of  words  by  gram- 
raatical  principles,  and  as  the  sense  thus  dis- 
covered is  the  true  and  only  proper  sense ;  it 
follows  that  a  knowledge  of  grammar  must  be 
most  essentially  useful  in  the  interpretation 
of  the  New  Testament. 

*!  [The  Latin  is,  de  usu  disciplinarum.  This  chapter  in 
fact  contains  references  to  all  such  branches  of  knowledge, 
teiiding  to  make  an  accomplished  interpreter,  as  could  not 
conveniently  be  arranged  under  any  of  the  preceding 
heads.] 

II.  Without  this  knowledge  the  true  sense 
of  words,  especially  in  the  dead  languages, 
can  never  be  discovered  or  established  with 
certainty;  nor  can  false  interpretations,  if  they 
be  consistent  with  reason  and  the  analogy  of 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         235 

faith,  be  otherwise  refuted  than  by  an  appeal 
to  grammatical  principles/ 

^  [The  reader  will  observe  that  Ernesti  gives  a  wide  sig- 
nification to  the  word  grammar,  and  means  by  it,  the  whole 
body  of  laws  by  which  the  use  of  words  is  regulated.  Thus 
to  confound  the  use  of  homo  and  vir,  and  to  consider  them 
as  convertible  terms,  would  shew  an  ignorance  of  grammar.] 

III.  It  is  therefore  highly  dangerous  for  any 
one  to  attempt  the  interpretation  of  Scripture, 
who  is  not  furnished  with  an  accurate  gram- 
matical knowledge  of  the  languages  in  which 
it  is  written  ;  for  he  wants  the  only  check  by 
which  the  license  of  supposing  meanings,  and 
forcing  the  language  of  Scripture,  can  be  re- 
strained; and  thus  wanders  into  uncertainty 
and  insecurity. 

IV.  The  learned  theologians,  Luther,  Me- 
lancthon.)  and  others,  being  well  aware  of  this, 
have  repeatedly  recommended  the  study  of 
grammar  to  the  young  theologian,  and  have 
warned  him  of  the  dangers  resulting  from  an 
ignorance  or  neglect  of  grammar.  Those  who 
have  neglected  these  admonitions  have  suffer- 
ed for  their  rashness;  examples  of  which  may 
be  found  in  Sixt.  Amama^s  Antiharb.  Bihl.  p. 
122,  and  MelancthorCs  Consilia  et  Judicia  TheoL 
p.  578. 


236  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

V.  For  though  Luther,  in  his  Commentary 
on  Genesis,  says,  "  that  though  grammar  is 
indeed  necessary  and  true,  still  it  ought  not 
to  govern  things,  but  rather  to  subserve  them  ;" 
he  does  not  mean  by  this  to  express  the  opi- 
nion erroneously  attributed  to  him  by  Simon 
in  his  Hist.  Crit.  T.  i.  p.  433,  that  is,  to  au- 
thorise the  interpreter  to  force  the  words  of 
Scripture  into  conformity  with  his  own  opi- 
nions, in  spite  of  all  grammatical  rules ;  for 
had  he  thought  thus,  he  would  not  have  called 
grammar  necessary.  What  he  means  to  say 
is,  that  the  words  of  a  passage  are  not  to  be  so 
pressed  to  the  grammatical  sense,  as  to  be  put 
in  opposition  with  truths  otherwise  known 
with  certainty  and  precision ;  but  rather  that 
the  strict  rules  of  grammar  are  to  be  so  tem- 
pered in  interpreting,  as  that  the  consistency 
of  Scripture  may  be  preserved.  We  have  be- 
fore shown  that  this  ought  to  be  done,  and  in 
what  manner ;  nor  does  this  hold  good  in 
Scripture  only,  but  is  equally  necessary  in 
profane  literature.^ 

•  It  appears  then  that  apparent  contradictions  in  Scrip- 
ture are  to  be  reconciled  upon  general  principles,  and  this 
cannot  be  done  without  the  use  of  reason  and  philosophy. 
[Ammon  says,  these  difficulties  are  to  be  referred  ad  sen- 
ientias  universas,  and  he  may  be  understood  to  mean  the 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         237 

avctXoyia  -ria-Tiu;.  At  any  rate,  it  is  to  this  that  Ernesti 
refers;  see  Bibl.  Cab.  Ernesti's  Inst.  I.  p.  127 — 130:  there 
also  it  will  be  seen  that  Amnion  uses  similar  language,  with 
the  additional  difficulty  of  a  misprint.  As  an  example,  when 
God  is  represented  as  using  corporeal  members,  we  conclude 
from  general  principles,  that  is  from  the  analogy  of  faith, 
that  such  expressions  are  to  be  understood  figuratively,  be- 
cause God  is  a  Spirit.] 

VI.  Since  there  are  two  divisions  of  gram- 
mar, the  one  historical,  the  other  technical; 
we  must  here  be  understood  to  speak  of  the 
technical,  which,  indeed,  is  alone  properly 
grammar.  The  parts  of  technical  grammar 
which  apply  to  interpretation  are  etymology^ 
taken  in  its  widest  sense,  or  analogy^  which  is 
employed  upon  single  words ;  and  syntax^ 
which  regulates  the  combination  of  words  in 
a  sentence. 

VII.  As  both  of  these  are  of  great  import- 
ance in  enabling  us  either  to  write  or  to  under- 
stand writings  correctly,  it  is  clear  that  we 
ought  to  possess  such  a  knowledge  of  both, 
as  may  qualify  us  for  the  work  of  interpreta- 
tion; and,  at  the  same  time,  enable  us  to  judge 
of  the  state  of  the  text,  and  the  choice  of  read- 
ings, for  which  task  we  must  be  totally  unfit, 
unless  we  are  well  acquainted  with  grammar. 

VIII.  An  interpreter,  therefore,  ought,  in 
the  first  place,  to  be  acquainted  with  the  differ- 


238         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

ences  and  powers  of  words,  in  so  far  as  they 
depend  upon  their  grammatical  form ;  for  as  to 
those  which  depend  merely  upon  the  usage  of 
language,  they  are  matter  of  observation,  and 
have  been  treated  of  elsewhere.  The  differ- 
ences here  to  be  considered  are  those  which 
arise  from  derivation,  composition,  inflexion, 
and  accents ;  of  all  which  things  certain  rules 
may  be  found  in  treatises  of  grammar,  or  may 
be  deduced  from  practice,  though,  in  the  two 
former  cases,  with  some  exceptions.  Nor  ought 
we  less  carefully  to  study  the  force  and  differ- 
ence of  forms  in  those  words  which  gramma- 
rians have  styled  emphatically  verba,  verbs; 
together  with  the  exceptions  to  each  rule, 
either  as  to  tenses  or  moods,  which  have  been 
introduced  by  usage.  Interpreters  who  have 
not  acquired  an  accurate  knowledge  of  these 
rules,  and  have  not  rendered  their  knowledge 
available  by  the  habit  of  applying  it,  are  liable 
to  fall  into  great  and  serious  blunders;  and  it  is 
wonderful  how  many  instances  of  such  blun- 
ders are  to  be  met  with ;  whereas,  a  little  at- 
tention to  grammar  often  clears  away  the 
difficulty,  and  enables  us  to  interpret  rightly, 
and  to  refute  the  errors  of  others.* 

['  The  note  of  Ammoii  on  this  section  relates  to  the  sig- 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         239 

nification  of  aX^u,  in  Matt.  xi.  8,  which  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  subject  treated  of  by  Ernesti :  and  all  the  argu- 
ment refers  to  the  usage  not  to  the  grammatical  rules  of 
the  language.  An  example,  perhaps  more  in  point,  may  be 
taken  from  Rom.  viii.  30,  which  in  our  version  is  rendered 
thus  ;  "  Moreover  whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also 
called  ;  and  whom  he  called,  them  he  also  justified ;  and 
whom  he  justified  them  he  also  glorified."  Now,  all  these 
verbs  being  in  the  first  aorist,  are  not  necessarily  expressive 
of  past  time,  but  are  completely  indefinite,  and  mark  habi- 
tual, systematic  action.  The  text,  therefore,  would  have 
been  better  rendered,  "  whom  he  predestinates,  them  he  also 
calls,"  &c.  The  grammatical  differences  according  to  Ernesti 
are,  "  derivationis  compositionis  que  modo,  scriptura  et 
accentibus."  What  he  means  by  scriptura  the  translator 
does  not  know ;  and  has  inserted  injlexi&n,  as  believing  it 
to  be  the  most  important  of  grammatical  differences.] 

IX.  But  the  knowledge  of  syntax  is  still 
more  necessary,  not  only  that  we  may  ascer- 
tain the  order  in  which  the  words  are  to  be 
taken,  which  is  often  of  great  importance  to 
the  right  understanding  of  the  passage  ;  but 
also,  that  we  may  know  the  proper  construc- 
tion of  every  word  and  particle  separately,  so 
as  to  be  able  to  judge  whether  the  expression 
be  pure  Greek  or  not,  and  this,  as  we  have 
before  shown,  is  a  matter  of  considerable  im- 
portance ;  and  finally,  that  we  may  know  the 
force  and  sense  of  each  particular  construc- 
tion from  the  true  spirit  of  the  language.  For 
he  who,  being  ignorant  of  these  matters,  pro- 


240         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

ceeds  to  translate  word  for  word  from  one  lan- 
guage into  another,  must  necessarily  fall  into 
great  and  frequent  errors,  from  the  dissimi- 
larity of  the  idioms.  The  writings  of  the  com- 
mentators are  full  of  mistakes  of  this  class; 
nor  can  any  one,  without  the  knowledge  here 
required,  detect  and  confute  the  errors  of  in- 
terpreters and  critics." 


°  We  may  produce  as  an  instance  the  mistakes  and  diffi- 
culties  of  interpreters  at  Philip,  i.  22,  who  fail  to  connect 
the  protasis,  s/  Ti,  with  its  apodosis  xai  ri.  The  passage 
ought  to  be  resolved  thus,  akk'  tl  (quamvis,  Viger.  ed.  Zeuuii, 

p.    492,)    XU)     TO   ^^V    Iv    ffa^X.)     70VT0V    fAOL    i^^^il     XOC^TOV   l^yOV,     KO.) 

{tameii)  ri  cci^'A(ro(jt.a,i  oh  yvu^'i^u.  [The  translator  must  con- 
fess that  Ammon's  resolution  does  not  enlighten  him  as  to 
the  meaning  of  this  passage.  Proofs  are  scarcely  required 
to  shew  that  in  order  to  translate  a  Greek  book,  we  must 
know  the  rules  of  Greek  syntax ;  but  we  may  take  one  from 
John  i.  1,  Koc)  Bco;  h  0  Xoyot.  Why  do  we  render  this, 
and  the  word  was  God,  rather  than,  God  tvas  the  word  ? 
Because  it  is  a  rule  of  Greek  syntax,  that  when  a  subject 
and  predicate  are  joined  together  by  the  substantive  verb, 
the  subject  has  the  article,  and  the  predicate  has  it  not.] 


X.  With  grammar  and  syntax  we  may  also 
class  rules  respecting  the  figures  of  speech, 
such  as  ellipsis,  pleonasm,  &c.  Respecting 
these,  interpreters  often  get  into  difficulties, 
and  force  the  sense  of  Scripture,   when  they 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         241 

are  not  acquainted  accurately  with  their  force 
and  meaning,   as  determined  by  the  usage  of 
language.     Nor,  with  respect  to  some  of  these, 
ought  the  rules  of  rhetoric  to  be  neglected,  if 
w^e  would  wish  to  know  their  true  force,  to 
avoid  a  fruitless   search  after  emphasis,   and 
unfounded  suspicions  of  the  purity  of  expres- 
sion.    Thus,  in  rhetoric,  pleonasm  serves  both 
to  heighten  and  adorn  the  sense  ;  and  yet  this 
is  not  always  its  use,  for  we  find  it  sometimes 
in  the  most  ancient  simplicity  of  language,  as 
in  the  Hebrew,  from  whence  it  has  been  in- 
troduced into  the  new  Testament.    From  what- 
ever cause  it  arose,   it  has  been  admitted  into 
the  usage  of  language,  and  employed  by  those 
who  wrote  with  elegance ;  we  must  not,  there- 
fore,  when  we  meet  with  a  pleonasm,  imme- 
diately suspect  that  there  is  an   error  in  the 
expression,  nor  must  we  force  upon  it  a  mean- 
ing either  of  intensity  or  ornament.     And  the 
same  may  be  said  of  synonymy  and  tautology, 
of  which  many  examples,  under  the  hesid  pleo- 
nasm, have   been  collected  by  Glasshis,  in  his 
Phil.  Sac.  lib.  iv.  tr.  ii.  obs.   15.     He  that  is 
ignorant  of  these  rules  cannot  be  competent 
to  explain  or  defend  passages  in  which  such 
figures  occur.^ 


242         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

^  Consult  rather  Bathe's  edition  of  the  Phil.  Sac.  and 
Schaeffer^s  edition  of  Bos  on  ellipsis.  [For  remarks  on  the 
interpretation  of  tropes  and  emphasis,  see  also  Ernesti's 
Inst.  i.  p.  135,  Bibl.  Cab.] 

XL  The  interpreter  ought,  also,  to  be  ac- 
quainted with  what  we  may  call  faults  of  ex- 
pression, lest  he  be  led  astray  in  questions  re- 
lating to  the  existence  of  solecisms  and  bar- 
barisms in  the  New  Testament.^      Some,  we 
know,  in  defiance   of  all   grammatical  rules, 
deny  that  any  thing  deserving  these  names  is 
to  be  found  in  the  sacred  books,   imagining 
that  they  are  thus  supporting  the  dignity  of 
Scripture ;  while  others  rush  into  the  opposite 
extreme,  and  assert  their  existence  in  a  way 
calculated  to  throw  contempt  upon  the  inspired 
writers.     These    forms  are    in   reality  faulty 
only  when  they  are  admitted   through  igno- 
rance or  carelessness,  and  without  any  suffi- 
cient cause ;  and  that  they  have  not  thus  been 
admitted  by  the  writers  of  the   New  Testa- 
ment,  appears  from  what  has  been  said  re- 
specting their  Hebraisms,  (vol.  i.  p.  99,  seq.) 

'  Such  questions  occur  more  frequently  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Apocalypse,  than  of  any  other  book.  See 
Marsh's  Michaelis,  vol.  iv.  p.  529,  seq. 

XII.  But  the  highest  use  of  grammar  is  in 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  243 

criticism;  though  this  depends  not  merely  upon 
grammatical  rules,  but  also  upon  many  other 
branches  of  knowledge.  The  object  of  criti- 
cism is  to  distinguish  between  genuine  and  spu- 
rious readings,  to  correct  what  is  erroneous,  and 
to  do  this  upon  fixed  and  rational  principles.^ 

^  We  have  a  wide  field  for  the  exercise  of  this  science  in 
questions  respecting  the  authenticity  of  the  first  chapters  of 
St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  of  1  John  v.  7,  Rom.  ix.  5,  John 
viii.  1 — 12 ;  in  discaissions  respecting  the  language  in  which 
Matthew  wrote  ;  the  Gospel  to  the  Hebrews  ;  the  original 
of  the  Gospels,  &c.  [Ammon  extends  the  province  of  cri- 
ticism further  than  is  intended  by  Ernesti  in  the  text,  who 
refers  to  the  genuineness  of  words  and  clauses,  not  to  the 
authenticity  of  whole  books  or  chapters.  The  determina- 
tion of  such  questions  is  rather  historical  than  gramma- 
tical.] 

XIII.  The  necessity  of  critical  knowledge 
in  interpretation  is  clear  from  this,  that  with- 
out it  there  is  frequently  no  room  for  inter- 
pretation. For  it  is  in  vain  that  we  attempt 
to  interpret  that  which  is  spurious  or  corrupt ; 
and  strange  interpretations  often  arise  from 
the  attempt.  Quinctilian,  therefore,  (i.  4,) 
says  very  truly,  that  the  first  point  in  inter- 
pretation is  to  determine  whether  the  passage 
be  genuine,  and  to  correct  its  corruptions  if  it 
be  corrupt:  Enarrationem,  says  he,  prceccdat 
emendata  lectio. 


244  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

XIV.  Nor  does  the  necessity  appear  less 
from  this  consideration,  that  he  who  is  desti- 
tute of  this  knowledge  is  not  only  unable  to 
understand  or  estimate  critical  discussions  up- 
on portions  of  Scripture,  to  distinguish  between 
true  and  false  readings,  and  to  perceive  the 
worthlessness  of  false  and  empty  conjectures; 
but  also  frequently  brings  himself  into  inextri- 
cable difficulties,  and  falls  into  ridiculous  and 
shameful  blunders,  of  which  we  might  pro- 
duce numerous  examples.  How  contrary,  for 
example,  to  a  right  use  of  the  sacred  books,  is 
the  conduct  of  those  who,  being  totally  igno- 
rant of  criticism,  receive,  as  genuine  portions 
of  Scripture,  those  passages  or  words  which 
Erasmus  and  Beza  have  improperly  introduced 
into  the  text  upon  their  own  judgment,  or 
from  the  Latin  version ;  and  even  those  errors 
of  the  press  which  have  been  admitted  into 
and  repeated  by  the  minor  editions :  and  who 
exclaim  against  any  attempts  to  correct  such 
passages,  as  if  they  were  insults  offered  to  the 
declarations  of  the  Holy  Spirit.* 

^  From  Griesbacli's  Preface  II.  p.  xi.  seq.  we  may  learn 
that  these  foolish  objections  to  the  application  of  criticism 
have  not  yet  entirely  ceased. 

XV.  Criticism  has  always  been  highly  es- 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  245 

teemed  by  all  truly  learned  theologians ;  and 
interpreters  skilled  in  it  have  always  been 
reckoned  in  the  first  class  of  theoloo^ians.  Such 
were  Origen,  whose  merits  have  been  men- 
tioned above,  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  Basil, 
Chrysostom,  Jerome,  and  others,  whom  H.  Va- 
lesius  enumerates  in  his  book  de  Critica,  i.  23, 
seq.  Augustine  indeed  gives,  as  his  opinion, 
"  that  the  talent  of  those  who  seek  to  under- 
stand Scripture,  ought,  in  the  first  place,  to  be 
exercised  upon  the  correction  of  the  text," 
&c.  To  the  same  purpose  the  reader  may 
consult  Casauhon's  Exerc.  ad  C.  Baronii,  Pro- 
leg,  i.  n.  28,  xvi.  n.  110,  Rnd  Heiiisius^  Exercit. 
in  N.  T.  p.  4.'' 

^  [The  passage  from  Augustine  ends  with  these  additional 
words,  "  ef  emendatis  non  emendati  cedanW''  The  transla- 
tor supposes  codices  to  be  understood,  and  omits  the  clause 
as  a  mere  truism.] 

XVI.  Nor  has  that  ^t^'V/j  alone  been  tole- 
rated and  employed,  which  corrects  one  copy 
on  the  authority  of  other  copies ;  but  conjec- 
tural emendations  also,  when  they  are  sup- 
ported by  talent  and  learning,  and  rest  upon 
the  authority  of  analogy  :  See  Isidore  of  Pelu- 
sium,  iv.  112,  113,  and  Casaubon's  Exercit. 
Glassius  also,  in  his  Phil.  Sac.  i.  tr.  ii.  p.  168, 


246  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

admits  of  such  criticism,  by  approving  of  a 
conjectural  emendation  by  Beza,  Avhicli,  how- 
ever, oug'ht  not  to  have  been  approved.  Wet- 
stein,  in  his  Proleg.  p.  170,  mentions  nearly 
two  hundred  such  conjectural  emendations, 
and  the  number  might  be  considerably  in- 
creased.*' 

'^  The  number  has  been  increased  by  Bowyer's  conjec- 
tures on  the  N.  T.  edited  in  Germany  by  Schultz  1774. 
[London  1772.  It  is  much  easier  to  produce  passages  which 
have  been  corrupted  by  conjectural  emendation,  than  in- 
stances where  conjecture  alone,  without  the  aid  of  manu- 
scripts, versions,  or  Fathers,  has  certainly,  or  even  with 
probability,  restored  the  genuine  reading.  See  Marsh's 
3Iichaehs,  I.  304,  seq.] 

XVII.  He  who  has  it  at  heart  to  become 
an  interpreter  of  the  sacred  books,  ought  there- 
fore to  make  himself  acquainted  with  the  true 
genius  and  nature  of  criticism.  And  this  he 
must  learn,  neither  solely  nor  even  principally, 
from  books  which  profess  to  treat  of  it  syste- 
matically, for  thus  he  may  easily  be  deceived ; 
but  from  practice,  from  the  teaching  of  mo- 
dest and  accurate  critics,  and  from  reading 
their  printed  words.  Of  such  critics  we  may 
mention  Casanhon,  Gronovius,  Gra^vius,  Biir- 
jnann,  Pcrizonhis,  and  others.  The  safest 
course  is  to  begin  with  the  application  of  eri- 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         247 

ticism  to  profane  literature,  on  which  it  has 
hitherto  been  employed  with  most  diligence 
and  success,  and  in  relation  to  which,  mistakes 
will  be  of  less  importance.  It  is  rare  for  one 
who  has  not  previously  exercised  himself  in 
such  studies,  to  make  any  great  advances  in 
the  criticism  of  Scripture  ;  and  he  who  attempts 
the  criticism  of  Scripture,  ignorant,  or  possessing 
but  a  superficial  knowledge  of  Greek  and  Latin 
literature,  will  most  assuredly  lose  his  labour. 

XVIII.  He  who  has  attained  these  previous 
requisites,  must  next  ascertain  that  he  is  well 
acquainted  with  the  critical  apparatus,  and  its 
use  in  judging  of  readings  according  to  fixed 
rules ;  that  is  to  say,  he  must  be  acquainted 
both  with  the  sources  whence  readings  are 
derived,  and  the  principles  according  to  which 
their  value  is  to  be  estimated.  In  this  matter 
he  may  use  the  observations  made  in  chapters 
iii.  iv.  V. 

XIX.  But  he  must  depend  rather  upon 
practice  and  experience,  than  upon  the  mere 
knowledge  of  rules.  Let  him  attend  there- 
fore the  lectures  of  interpreters  who  do  not  alto- 
gether neglect  criticism,  and  who  have  proved 
themselves  masters  of  the  application  of  cri- 
tical rules ;  or  let  him  read  what  men,  eminent 
in  this  science,  as  Mill^  Bengel^  Michaelis,  and 


248    USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

others,  whose  number  is  not  great,^  have  writ- 
ten upon  remarkable  passages  ;  and  comparing 
their  observations  with  the  before  mentioned 
rules,  he  will  gradually  learn  to  form  an  accu- 
rate critical  judgment 

*  Such  are  Griesbach,  Noesselt,  Morus,  Doederlein,  Eick- 
horn. 

XX.  If,  after  having  advanced  so  far,  he 
wishes  to  attempt  something  himself,  let  him 
be  careful  not  hastily  to  approve  or  admit  any 
reading  without  the  authority  of  manuscripts  ; 
and,  at  the  same  time,  not  to  despise  the  coii- 
jectures  of  learned  men,  whereby  difficult  and 
perplexed  passages  are  rendered  perspicuous, 
consistent  with  the  subject,  the  context,  and 
the  style  of  the  author ;  and  are  not  materially 
altered  from  the  Vulgate  reading,  that  is  to 
say,  from  the  reading  found  in  the  great  ma- 
jority of  manuscript  and  printed  copies.  Such 
are  the  conjecture  of  Camerarius  on  John  xix. 
29,  who  proposes  to  read  for  l(j(ru)-7ruj  which  has 
puzzled  all  the  critics,  vtreuruj  or  v(f(f(p  ru),  and  a 
few  others,  which  I  have  met  with.^  These, 
however,  ought  rather  to  be  proposed  in  notes, 
commentaries,  and  books  of  observations,  than 
to  be  inserted  in  the  tcxt.*^ 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  249 

^  As  for  example  llovSlxv  [for  \l,ov(ria.v'\  in  1  Cor.  xi.  10, 
and  c-iu'tvitrB-ai  [for  ffaivierS-xtl  in  1  Thess.  iii.  3,  but  these 
conjectures  of  Camerarius,  Godfrey/,  and  Reiske,  are  merely 
ingenious  guesses.  [Of  these  conjectures  the  too  former 
are  noticed  by  Griesbach ;  the  latter  is  of  no  importance, 
and  removes  no  difficulty  by  substituting  a  rare  for  a  com- 
mon word.  'ElovSix  is  supposed  to  be  from  the  Latin  exuvia, 
a  veil :  an  unknown  word,  in  a  sense  which  its  plural 
exuvicB  does  not  possess.  Instead  of  ffta'tvia-B-oct  it  would  have 
been  more  to  the  purpose  to  mention  ffukmiffS-cci  a  conjec- 
ture of  Beza  and  Bentley.] 

^Unless  they  are  confirmed  by  the  authority  of  manu- 
scripts, as  aTroxiffat,  Matt.  X.  42,  on  which,  see  Wetstein. 

XXI.  As  we  must  be  very  scrupulous  in 
making  any  alterations  upon  the  text  which 
we  possess ;  so,  on  the  other  hand,  we  must 
not  superstitiously  pin  our  faith  to  any  parti- 
cular edition,  as  if  every  letter  and  word  of 
it  were  inspired,  and  as  if  neither  the  autho- 
rity of  manuscripts  nor  of  reason,  could  justify 
our  departing  from  it  in  any  iota.  We  must 
be  equally  careful  not  to  attribute  to  the  Holy 
Spirit  that  which  he  never  dictated,  and  not  to 
reject  as  spurious  that  which  really  proceeds 
from  Him.s 

s  [It  is  clear  that  the  higher  the  notion  of  inspiration  is 
carried,  the  more  imperatively  necessary  is  an  accurate  ad- 
justment of  the  text.  If  we  hold  only  a  substantial,  not  a  ver- 
bal  inspiration,  the  various  readings,  where  they  do  not 
affect  the  sense  in  any  material  point,  are  of  little  import- 


250  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

ance.  It  is  a  material  point  that  we  should  know  the 
grounds  of  justification  :  but  it  is  not  material  that  we 
should  know  whether  a  certain  town,  where  Jesus  was, 
bore  the  name  oi Bethania  or  Bethahara.  But  as  in  many 
cases  it  may  be  difficult,  or  impossible,  to  draw  the  line  be- 
tween material  and  unimportant  propositions,  it  is  conse- 
quently our  duty  to  ascertain  as  closely  as  possible  the  true 
reading  in  every  case.] 


XXII.  Tliey  abuse  criticism,  and  are  un- 
worthy of  the  name  of  critics,  who  are  so  prone 
to  conjecture,  that  as  soon  as  they  meet  with 
a  passage  which  they  do  not  understand,  they 
apply  themselves  to  an  emendation  of  the  text. 
From  such  a  practice,  reason,  and  the  example 
of  rash  and  empty  conjectures,  ought  to  deter 
the  biblical  student.  For  it  is  irrational  to 
conclude,  that  a  passage  is  corrupt,  merely 
because  a  reader,  however  well  informed,  does 
not  immediately  understand  it,  or  because  he 
cannot  reconcile  it  with  the  ordinary  rules  of 
language  ;  and  no  man  ought  to  think  so  highly 
of  himself,  as  to  suppose  in  such  cases  that 
nothing  has  escaped  his  notice.  And  since 
almost  all  such  conjectures  have  been  found 
frivolous  and  insufficient,  it  is  the  part  of  a 
modest  and  cautious  critic,  not  to  he  precipi- 
tate in  forming  his  judgment,  and  rather  to 
confess  his  ignorance  than  to  hurry  upon  cor- 


USE   OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  251 

rection ;  and  this  is  the  practice  of  good  critics 
even  with  respect  to  profane  literature. 

XXIII.  We  must,  therefore,  on  every  op- 
portunity, oppose  the  impious  arrogance  and 
ignorance  of  those  who,  in  order  to  support 
their  own  theological  opinions,  venture  to  ad- 
mit into  the  text  of  Scripture  not  only  read- 
ings which  are  supported  by  a  few  manuscripts 
of  doubtful  authority,  but  even  their  own  un- 
supported imaginations.  It  is  quite  clear  that 
the  Socinians  and  their  favourers  have  sinned 
in  both  these  ways ;  in  the  former  Wetstein 
has  too  often  erred.*^ 

^  [Ammon  here  notices  Barhdt  as  erring  in  this  way.  As 
an  instance  of  rash  Socinian  correction  we  may  notice  that 
of  Crellius  on  John  i.  I,  of  9-iov  for  B-ios,  and  that  of  Schich- 
tingius  on  Rom.  ix.  5,  of  ^€lv  o  Itt)  -^avruv  S-io;  for  o  uiv  It) 
Tavruv  B-io;.  The  dogmatic  reason  for  the  change  in  both 
cases  is  clear ;  but  the  critical  reasons,  though  supported  in 
the  latter  case  by  Wetstein,  are  exti*emely  weak.] 

XXIV.  As  to  the  assertion  of  certain  Ro- 
manists, of  Laiihrusselius^  for  example,  in  his 
work.  On  the  Abuse  of  Sacred  Criticism,  P.  i. 
p.  168,  that  they  abuse  sacred  criticism  who 
undertake  it,  without  such  authority  from  the 
Church  or  Pope,  as  Jerome  had  from  Damasus^ 
we  must  entirely  reject  it;  together  with  those 


252  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

arguments  in  which  he  makes  the  abuse  of 
criticism  to  consist  in  exposures  of  Romish 
superstitions.  And  almost  all  the  doctors  of 
that  church  write  in  the  same  strain. 

XXV.  Upon  the  whole,  the  student  ought 
to  be  aware,  that  of  all  sorts  of  knowledge, 
criticism  is  the  most  difficult  both  to  acquire 
and  to  apply  to  practice  ;  so  infinite  in  number, 
and  so  minute  in  individual  importance,  are 
the  points  of  evidence  on  which  it  rests  ;  and 
so  numerous  and  difficult  of  apprehension  are 
the  scruples  requisite  in  its  application.  The 
facility  of  error  either  through  forgetfulness 
or  lack  of  judgment,  as  it  renders  occasional 
errors  more  pardonable,  ought  at  the  same 
time  to  render  the  critic  more  careful  and 
modest  in  his  judgments.^  The  student  will 
do  well  to  read,  in  reference  to  these  points, 
Mahillon  De  Studiis  Monast.  p.  ii.  c.  13,  de 
Critica,  et  regulis  in  ed  ohservandis. 

*  As  an  example  we  may  take  Matt.  v.  22,  where  it  ap- 
pears that  Imn  ought  to  be  rejected  ;  and  Acts  xxi.  15,  where 
the  reading  a.'jfo(niivx(ra.iti\oi  ought  to  be  retained,  though  it 
is  pronounced  absurd  by  Morus  and  many  other  critics  :  for 
it  is  supported  by  the  authority  of  manuscripts,  by  the 
Syriac  and  Vulgate  versions,  and  by  the  usage  of  the  He- 
brew language.  H^S)  Levit.  xiv.  36,  is  rendered  by  the 
LXX.  a-TotrKiVKffaij  and  by  Aqidla  ix(po^i7v,  to  carry  out  bag- 
gage ;  which  sense  perfectly  suits  the  context. 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORxMATION.  253 

XXVI.  Among  the  instruments  of  inter- 
pretation, rhetoric  is  to  be  considered  next  to 
grammar.  Tliat  portion  of  it  is  most  import- 
ant which  treats  of  the  nature  and  meaning  of 
tropes  :  for  interpreters  who  are  deficient  in 
this  knowledge  often  fall  into  grievous  blun- 
ders. This  subject,  however,  we  have  already- 
examined,  together  with  its  application  to  in- 
terpretation. It  is  also  useful  to  know  the 
rules  laid  down  in  rhetorical  treatises  respect- 
ing the  different  modes  and  beauties  of  style, 
and  especially  respecting  sublimity  or  beauty 
of  sentiment ;  that  we  may  be  enabled  to  re- 
cognise, to  feel,  and  to  interpret  those  instances 
which  so  frequently  occur  in  the  discourses  of 
our  Saviour,  and  in  the  writino^s  of  St.  Paul. 
The  interpreter,  however,  must  consider  that 
he  does  not  write  for  boys;  and  consequently, 
that  it  is  unnecessary  for  him  to  detail  the 
names  of  the  different  tropes  and  figures, 
which  detail  tends  neither  to  explain  the  sense, 
nor  to  point  out  the  beauty. 

XXVII.  The  interpreter  of  Scripture  will 
also  derive  considerable  advantage  from  -phi- 
losophy,  if  he  has  rightly  learned  it.  And  its 
office  is  not  so  much  directly  relative  to  facts 
and  sentiments,  as  to  the  method  of  handling 
them.     For  the  assertions  of  Scripture  are  not 


254         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

to  be  submitted  to  philosophy,  nor  to  be  ac- 
commodated to  its  decrees,  and  much  less  to 
those  vague  opinions  commonly  called  hypo- 
theses. Great  care  also  must  be  taken  lest  we 
interpret  the  words  of  Scripture  according  to 
the  definitions  of  philosophers,  and  thence  pro- 
ceed to  philosophize  upon  the  sense.  Those 
who  profess  to  depend  upon  philosophy,  and 
are  at  the  same  time  imperfectly  acquainted 
with  literature,  are  apt  to  fall  into  this  error, 
whence  great  evils,  and  much  inconvenience  in 
the  interpretation  of  Scripture  have  arisen.'' 

^  Manv  learned  interpreters  cannot  admit  the  creation  of 
theunivei'se  ascribed  to  Christ  in  Col.  i.  16.  ;  and,  therefore, 
interpret  the  passage  as  referring  to  a  moral  creation  :  but 
compare  John  i.  3,  Ephes.  iii.  9,  Heb.  i.  2.  All  those  acts 
which  in  the  Psalms,  Proverbs,  and  Apocrypha,  are  attri- 
buted to  divine  wisdom,  are  in  the  New  Testament  attri- 
buted to  the  koyos  or  higher  nature  of  Christ.  [Philosophy 
is  so  vague  a  term,  that  in  the  absence  of  examples,  the 
translator  is  unable  to  say  what  branch  of  science  the  au- 
thor meant  to  designate  by  it.  Probably  this  27th  §  is  to 
be  considered  as  an  introduction  to  those  that  follow ;  and 
the  philosophy  intended  is  dialectic  or  metaphysical.] 

XXVIII.  We  may,  therefore,  confine  our 
attention  to  the  science  of  Lo(/lc,  which  is  ser- 
viceable to  interpretation  in  several  ways. 
And  first,  I  would  mention  that  it  is  useful  in 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  255 

distinguishing  between  the  ideas  of  things  and 
the  sounds  of  words ;  so  that  we  may  be  able 
to  make  a  clear  distinction  between  that  which 
we  understand  and  that  which  we  do  not ;  the 
necessity  of  which  has  before  been  pointed 
out.  And  this  is  effected  in  two  ways :  we 
must  ascertain  with  respect  to  those  things 
which  are  perceived  by  the  external  senses, 
whether  we  can  actually  recall  their  idea^  and 
by  that  idea  contemplate  the  things  themselves ; 
and  with  respect  to  those  which  are  the  subject 
of  the  internal  senses,  whether  we  can  re- 
member our  original  perception  of  them.  In 
things  which  are  the  objects  of  intellect,  we 
may  conclude  that  we  understand  them,  when 
we  are  able  to  define  our  notion  of  them  in 
clear  and  perspicuous  words:  but  in  those  which 
are  the  objects  of  sense,  such  as  plants,  ani- 
mals, &c.  it  is  sufficient  if  we  can  attribute 
them  to  their  proper  genus;  especially  when 
they  are  such  as  we  have  never  seen.  There 
are  also  other  ways  of  forming  this  judgment, 
which  have  nothing  to  do  with  dialectics. 

XXIX.  Another  use  of  this  science  is  to 
teach  us  both  how  to  form  accurate  notions  of 
words,  by  collecting  their  scattered  portions 
into  an  aggregate  whole,  or  by  deducing  them 
from  examples  in  which  they  may  be  found ; 


256    USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

and  also  how  to  express  these  notions  clearly 
and  briefly.  The  interpreter  who  is  not  pos- 
sessed of  this  knowledge  must  be  satisfied  with 
vague  and  imperfect  notions,  and  must  conse- 
quently wander  in  uncertainty  and  error.  In 
this  matter,  however,  habits  of  accurate  speak- 
ing and  writing  are  of  more  importance  than 
philosophical  rules ;  for,  as  Cicero  observes,  a 
man  may  understand  a  subject  accurately,  and 
yet  not  be  able  to  express  it  clearly ;  nor  can 
he  do  so  without  an  accurate  knowledge  of 
the  language,  and  practice  in  composition.* 

'  Thus  ordinary  interpreters  err  in  the  explanation  of  the 
words  Sa,(n?^sia  tuv  ou^avav^  -^viv/za,  fiircivoia,  t'ktti;^  -yra^ovcr'nt 
X^iffroiJ,  and  others  which  are  -n-ell  explained  in  Teller'' s 
Wdrterbuch  des  N.  T.  [In  general  a  writer  fails  in  per- 
spicuity, either  from  confusion  of  ideas,  or  from  the  affecta- 
tion of  some  particular  excellence  of  style.  Thus  excess 
either  of  brevity  or  of  ornament,  tends  to  prodiioe  ob- 
scurity.] 

XXX.  Another  use  of  logic  is  to  teach  us 
by  careful  comparison  to  distinguish  between 
similar  ideas;  lest  being  deceived  by  ambiguity? 
we  confound  things  that  are  essentially  distinct. 
In  doing  this,  however,  we  must  be  accurately 
acquainted  with  the  usages  of  the  language, 
and  must  guard  against  drawing  imaginary 
distinctions,  which  often  happens  to  those  who 
draw  all  their  knowledge  from  lexicons.™ 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         257 

[™  The  student  ought  therefore  to  be  acquainted  with 
the  synonynis  of  the  New  Testament ;  in  studying  which 
he  cannot  have  a  better  guide  than  Tittmanj  translated  by 
Rev.  E.  Craig,  Bibl.  Cab.  vol.  iii.] 

XXXI.  The  Student  must  again  and  again 
be  warned  not  to  abuse  liis  logical  and  meta- 
physical subtlety  in  the  interpretation  of  words, 
and  in  forming  imaginary  distinctions  of  sense  ; 
a  process  which,  even  in  human  works  intend- 
ed for  popular  instruction,  is  justly  considered 
ridiculous.  In  universal  and  absolute  propo- 
sitions, we  must  therefore  consider  with  what 
degree  of  accuracy  the  subject  will  permit  us 
to  interpret  the  terms  :  for,  as  Aristotle  well 
observes.  Ethics  i.  1,  "  Accuracy  is  not  equally 
desirable  in  every  sort  of  composition."  And, 
as  he  justly  holds  that  it  is  not  necessary  in 
writing  upon  subjects  which  relate  to  ordinary 
life ;  so  neither  can  it  be  required  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  such  writings.  He,  therefore,  who 
uses  it,  runs  a  great  risk  of  imagining  senses 
that  were  never  intended,  and  of  venting  his 
own  opinions  instead  of  those  of  the  author, 
whom  he  interprets,  as  J.  Hacksjjcnin  well  ob- 
serves in  his  Misc.  Sac,  p.  36." 

°  [  Thus  if  we  read  in  Eph.  iii.  18,  of  the  TXa-Tos  xal 
(aTikos,  Kui  Sa^osj  Kct)  u-^os,  of  the  love  of  Christ ;  as  the  sub- 


258  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

ject,  is  not  matliematical,  we  must  not  seek  for  an  accurate 
signification  in  these  terms  of  measurement ;  it  is  enough 
if  we  see  that  this  accumulation  of  terms  expresses  boldly 
and  poetically,  "  O  the  wondrous  greatness  of  the  love  of 
Christ !"] 

XXXII.  Though  common  sense  may  gene- 
rally be  trusted  as  a  sufficient  guide  in  this 
matter,  yet  it  may  be  useful  to  lay  down  a 
distinction  between  two  classes  of  subjects. 
In  whatever  relates  directly  to  God  and  to 
religion,  we  may  look  for  accuracy,  because 
these  subjects  have  neither  uncertainty  nor 
variation ;  but,  in  whatever  relates  to  human 
life  and  customs,  we  may  consider  scrupulous 
accuracy  as  quite  misplaced.** 

°  [In  all  dogmas  and  precepts  we  have  reason  to  expect 
accuracy  of  expression,  and  ought  consequently  to  use  ac- 
curacy of  interpretation.  There  are  exceptions,  however, 
at  least  apparently,  in  cases  where  moral  precepts  are  con- 
veyed in  proverbial  forms.  These  must  be  interpreted  ac- 
cording to  their  historical  sense ;  and  though  we  may  now 
be  at  a  loss  to  discover  this,  yet  in  all  probability  the  pro- 
verb conveyed  a  precise  notion  at  the  time  it  was  used. 
Much  of  this  occurs  in  the  sermon  on  the  mount,  which  is 
not  so  easy  a  portion  of  Scripture  as  some  have  imagined.] 

XXX II I.  Hence,  that  logical  analysis  of 
Scripture,  which  some  are  so  fond  of,  ought 
to  Le  used  with  great  caution ;  lest  we  be  de- 


USE   OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  259 

ceived  in  the  very  formation  of  the  notion,  on 
which  some  remarks  have  been  offered  in  § 
xxvii.  :  or  by  the  aid  of  such  analysis,  infer 
what  is  not  in  Scripture,  and  mingle  with  its 
meaning  notions  which  were  never  entertained 
by  the  sacred  writers. 

XXXIV.  Nor  is  it  an  unimportant  office 
of  logic  to  determine  what  is  contradictory, 
and  what  consistent.  For  the  interpreter  is 
required  to  explain  the  meaning  and  force  of 
propositions  everywhere  occurring  in  the  sa- 
cred books ;  and,  as  apparent  contradictions 
sometimes  arise  even  in  dogmas  ;  by  recon- 
ciling these,  the  harmony  and  consistency  of 
Scripture  must  be  maintained.  In  attempting 
this,  the  student  must  keep  in  mind  what  we 
have  already  observed,  p.  i.  sec.  ii.  chap,  vi., 
and  must  be  careful,  lest,  through  ignorance  of 
the  language,  he  imagine  discrepancies  which 
do  not  exist;  and  lest,  in  reconciling  them,  he 
employ  a  subtlety  foreign  to  the  nature  of  the 
subject,  and  to  the  style  of  the  author. 

XXXV.  And  since  logic  also  teaches  the 
proper  arrangement  of  topics  in  an  argument, 
the  rules  for  this  arrangement  ought  to  be 
known  to  an  interpreter,  that  he  may  be  en- 
abled to  detect  and  point  out  the  line  of  argu- 
ment in  those  portions  of  Scripture  which  are 


260         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

argumentative,  as  is  sometimes  the  case  in  the 
writinpfs  of  St.  Paul.  See  Melancthon's  declic. 
ad  dispos.  Ep.  ad  Rom.P  But  even  in  this 
an  excessive  subtlety  is  to  be  avoided,  and  we 
must  not  expect  to  find  such  arrangement 
everywhere?  or  to  prove  it  by  a  jejune  analy- 
sis, which  seldom, throws  any  light  upon  the 
sense.  For  where  the  authors  had  no  such 
arrangement  of  arguments  in  view,  it  is  an 
idle  labour  to  force  their  writings  into  coinci- 
dence with  an  imaginary  scheme  of  our  own 
devising. 

P  And  Koppe  in  his  edition  of  the  Epistles,  passim. 
[Ernesti  appears  rather  prejudiced  against  analyses  of  Scrip- 
ture ;  had  he  not  been  so,  he  would  have  used  a  stronger 
word  than  interdum  in  speaking  of  the  argumentative  na- 
ture of  St.  Paul's  composition.  Like  every  other  method 
of  interpretation  or  illustration,  analysis  may  be  abused  in 
rude  or  rash  hands,  but  it  is  not  on  that  account  to  be  pro- 
scribed ;  and  indeed  no  interpreter  will  ever  throw  much 
light  on  any  of  the  longer  epistles,  who  does  not  analyse 
them  judiciously.] 

XXXVI.  Besides  knowledge  of,  and  prac- 
tical skill  in  the  use  of  what  is  usually  called 
the  apparatus  of  an  interpreter,  the  theological 
student  ought  to  acquire  an  extensive  and 
accurate  knowledge  of  History ;  for  there  are 
many  things  in  the  sacred  books,  relating  to 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         261 

times,  places,  persons,  manners,  and  civil  and 
religious  ceremonies,  without  a  knowledge  of 
which  it  is  impossible  to  give  a  complete  in- 
terpretation of  the  passages  in  which  they  are 
mentioned.  He,  therefore,  who  proposes  to 
render  himself  an  accomplished  interpreter  of 
Scripture,  will  labour  previously  to  obtain  an 
extensive  knowledge  of  history.^ 


^  We  may  refer  to  Matt,  xxiii.  55.  Luke  ii.  2  ;  iii.  1. 
Acts  vii.  2  Thess  ii.  none  of  which  can  be  satisfactorily  ex- 
plained without  reference  to  history.  To  these  we  may 
add  the  subject  of  John's  baptism,  as  illustrated  from  Jo- 
sephus,  and  the  monuments  of  the  Sabians.  [The  Sabians, 
Zabians,  Mendai  Ijahi,  or  disciples  of  John,  appear  to  be  a 
Jewish  sect  sprung  from  the  Hemero-baptistae.  Mosheim 
supposes  John  their  founder  to  be  quite  a  different  person 
from  John  the  Baptist.  The  notices  of  this  sect  are  all 
comparatively  modern,  though  their  sacred  books,  copies  of 
which  exist  in  the  royal  library  at  Paris,  are  said  to  be  of 
an  ancient  date.  See  Mosheim  Saec.  xvi.  Sec.  iii.  P.  i.  ij 
xv'ii.  and  Eichhorii's  Algemeine  Bibliothek  der  Bibl.  Lit. 
T.  X.  P.  v.] 


XXXVII.  The  student  must  not  be  con- 
tented to  derive  his  knowledge  from  ordinary 
and  popular  compendia,  but  must  acquire  it 
for  himself  from  the  original  sources.  The 
commentaries  even  of  learned  men,  and  much 
more,    tracts  of  observations  and  discussions 


262         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

are  full  of  historical  errors,  often  very  import- 
ant ones,  arising  from  a  neglect  of  this  rule  : 
and  hence  have  arisen  the  most  absurd  inter- 
pretations, tending  rather  to  impede  the  reader 
than  to  relieve  him  from  his  difficulties.' 


-  See  Krehsii  Prolus.  de  ratione  N.  T.  e  moribus  aiitiquis 
lustrandi  minus  instituta,  in  Opusc-  p.  519. 


XXXVIII.  In  the  first  place,  the  student 
ought  to  be  acquainted  with  geography,  so  far 
as  it  is  connected  with  the  acts  of  our  Saviour 
and  his  Apostles.  And,  above  all,  ought  he  to 
be  acquainted  with  the  geography  of  Pales- 
tine, and  the  changes  which  took  place  with 
respect  to  its  divisions,  limits,  and  form  of 
government. 

XXXIX.  The  oldest  division  is  that  by 
Joshua  among  the  twelve  tribes  ;  this  division 
ceased  to  exist  when  the  kingdom  of  Israel 
had  been  overthrown  by  the  Assyrians,  and 
that  of  Jadea  by  the  Babylonians ;  and  yet  it 
is  sometimes  alluded  to  by  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament,  as  in  Matt.  iv.  13,  15.  A 
second  division  succeeded  this,  and  prevailed 
down  to  the  destruction  of  the  temple  and 
nation.  This  division  was  at  first  into  two 
parts,  that  being  the  original  number  of  king- 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.        263 

doms ;  afterwards,  we  cannot  exactly  say  when, 
but  certainly  under  the  Asmonean    dynasty, 
the  division  became  fourfold,  into  Judea^  Sa- 
maria<i    Galilee^  and  Percea.      Idumea   was   a 
portion  of,   or  an  accession  to  Judea,   (Mark 
iii.    8,)    of  which  we    shall   speak   hereafter. 
Sometimes,  however,  the  name  Judea  is  used 
generally  for  the  whole  country.     The  capital 
of  Samaria^  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour's  mi- 
nistry was  Sichem,    (John  iv.   5,)   the  city  of 
Samaria  with   its    temple    having   been    pre- 
viously destroyed.     Galilee  was  divided  into 
two  provinces,  Galilee  Superior,  which  bordered 
on  the  Syrians  and  Phoenicians,  and  is  some- 
times called  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles,  Matt.  iv. 
15  ;  and  Galilee  Inferior,  which  is  generally  to 
be  understood  when  the  word  Galilee  is  used 
without  any  adjective.     In  this  last  were  si- 
tuated Tiberias,  Nazareth,  Capernaum,  Mount 
Tabor,  and  Decapolis,  or,  at  least,  a  portion  of 
it,  Mark  vii.  31.®       Percea  properly  compre- 
hends the  district  formerly  occupied  by  the 
tribes  of  Gad  and  Reuben ;  but  it  was  after- 
wards increased  at  various  times. 


^For  the  divisions  of  Galilee,  see  Buxtorf's  Lexicon 
Talmud,  in  v.  7^7^,  where  will  also  be  found  extracts  from 
the  Rabbinical  writings  respecting  the  Galilean  dialect  well 


264  USE  OF  GENERAL  INF0R3IATI0N. 

worthy  of  perusal.  [For  the  latter  subject,  see  also  Pfann- 
kuche''s  tract  on  the  language  of  Palestine,  translated  by 
3Ir.  Repp.  Bibl.  Cab.  No.  II.  p.  74.] 

XL.  For  the  boundaries  of  these  divisions 
were. gradually  altered.  To  Judea  was  added 
the  old  province  of  Idumea,  first  acquired  by 
David,  and  afterwards  recovered  by  John  Hyr- 
canus.  This  province  was  incorporated  with 
Judea  when  the  Idumeans  adopted  the  Jewish 
religion,  and  on  that  account  considered  them- 
selves,  and  were  usually  styled,  Jews.  On  this 
subject  the  reader  may  consult  CasauborCs 
Exerc.  i.  ad  App.  Baron,  n.  3,  where  he  main- 
tains that  Herod  is  properly  called  a  Jew. 
To  Percea  was  added  whatever  territories  were 
<rradually  acquired  to  the  new  kingdom  of 
Judea:  thus  Iturea  was  added  under  the  Asmo- 
nean  dynasty,  and  Trachonitis,  Batanea,  Au- 
ranitis,  Abilene,  were  acquired  by  the  Herods, 
or  added  by  the  liberality  of  the  Csesars. 
These  districts  had  mostly  been  portions  of 
the  land  of  Israel,  but  had  acquired  new  names 
under  the  dominion  of  the  Syrian  kings,  and 
had  not  been  entirely  recovered  under  the 
Asmonean  princes.' 

*  [For    the  geography  of  the  Holy    Land,  the  student 
may  consult,  S.  Bocharti  Geographia  Sacra;  Fred.  Span- 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.    265 

heimii  Introduclio  ad  Geog.  Sac.  in  the  first  volume  of  his 
collected  works,  Reland's  Palestina,  Historical  Geography 
of  the  New  Testament  by  E.  Wells  ;  Rohr''s  Pal'dstina  oder 
Historisch-Geographische  Bescreibung  des  Judischen  Landes 
zur  Zeit  Jesu. 

XLI.  All  these  provinces  were  incorporated 
into  the  kingdom  of  Herod  the  Greats  son  of 
Antipater,  who  had  been  Procurator,  first  of 
Idumea,  and  then  by  the  decree  of  Julius 
Csesar,  of  all  Judea.  After  the  death  of  He- 
rod the  Great,  his  dominions  were  divided  by- 
Augustus  among  his  sons,  according  to  the 
will  of  the  deceased  monarch.  Archelaus  ob- 
tained Judea,  properly  so  called,  with  Idumea 
and  Samaria,  under  the  title  of  Ethnarch ; 
Herod  Antipas  had  Galilee  and  Pereea,  confined 
within  their  ancient  restricted  limits ;  while 
Philip  had  the  rest  of  the  country  beyond 
Jordan,  called  in  Luke  iii.  1,  Iturea  and  Tra- 
chonitis.  These  two  last  princes  had  the  title 
of  Tetrarch." 


^  The  same  Philip  is  mentioned  in  Matt.  xiv.  3.  Jose- 
phus  represents  him  as  married  to  Salome,  whom  Matthew 
declares  to  have  been  his  daughter  by  Herodias.  [But  the 
question  is,  whether  this  be  the  same  Philip.  Josephus 
mentions  another  Philip  disinherited  by  his  father  Herod 
the  Great ;  not  the  uterine  brother  of  Antipas,  but  born  of 
Mariamne  daughter  of  Simon  the  High- Priest.     It  is  more 


266         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

likely  that  Antipas  should  take  away  the  wife  of  a  private 
citizen,  than  of  a  sovereign  equal  in  dignity  and  power  to 
himself.     See  Grotius  or  Kuinoel  ad  locum.] 


XLII.  But  Archelaus  beino*  driven  into 
exile,  his  territories  were  formed  into  a  pro- 
vince, and  administered  by  Womdin pi^ucurators, 
that  is,  by  lesser  magistrates  who  had  not  held 
any  senatorial  office,  of  which  officers  Pilate 
was  one.  Afterwards  the  territories  of  Herod 
Antipas,  who  also  was  banished,  were  added 
to  this  province.  The  Tetrarchate  of  Philip, 
who  died  in  the  first  year  after  the  death  of 
Christ,  was  added  to  the  province  of  Syria. 

XLIII.  From  this  Procuratorship  the  Te- 
trarchate of  Antipas  was  withdrawn,  and  grant- 
ed by  Caligula,  under  the  designation  of  a 
kingdom,  (see  Philo  Legat.  ad  Cai.  p.  1034,) 
to  Agrippa  the  elder,  who  had  already  re- 
ceived the  tetrarchates  of  Philip  and  Lysanias. 
The  remainder,  that  is  to  say  Judea  and 
Samaria,  were  granted  by  Claudius;  and  thus 
the  procuratorship  was  abolished,  and  the  king- 
dom restored.  But  upon  the  death  of  Agrippa, 
which  occurred  about  three  years  after  this, 
procurators  were  again  appointed  ;  of  whom 
were  Felix  and  Festus,  mentioned  in  Acts 
XXV.   xxvi.     A(j/rippa  the  younger,  son  of  the 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  267 

former  Agrippa,  received  from  Claudius  at 
first  only  the  kingxiom  of  Chalcis,  with  domi- 
nion over  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  the 
right  of  appointing  the  High  Priest.^ 

^  The  accurate  illustration  of  these  matters  forms  the 
principal  merit  of  Mkhaelis'  version  of  the  New  Testament, 
illustrated  with  notes.  See  also  the  genealogy  of  the  He. 
rodian  family  at  the  end  oi  Havercainp''s  edition  of  Josephus. 
[The  subject  is  also  treated  of,  but  too  briefly,  in  Home's 
Introd.  III.  99j  seq.] 

XLIV.  The  student  ought,  therefore,  to  be 
familiar  with  these  points  of  history,  and  not 
be  under  the  necessity  of  perpetually  referring 
to  ordinary  books ;  he  ought  also  to  be  familiar 
with  the  names  and  situations  of  cities,  coun- 
tries, and  rivers.y  Nor  ought  he  to  be  igno- 
rant of  the  neighbouring  countries,  Phoenicia, 
Syria,  and  Arabia,  which  are  frequently  men- 
tioned in  the  sacred  books  ;  nor  of  their  prin- 
cipal cities,  as  Tyre,  Sidon,  Damascus,  An- 
tioch,  &c.  On  this  head  it  will  be  well  to 
consult  the  notes  of  the  learned  on  Eusehius's 
Tract,  de  Locis  Hebraicis,  and  RelancVs  Pa- 
lestine.^ 

y  Thus  in  Mark  vi.  45,  we  meet  with  •^ri^a.v  t^o;  B'/iS-trut^uv. 
The  interpreter  must  be  careful  not  to  look  for  a  place  near 
Capernaum ;  for  the  place  spoken  of  is  Bethsaida  on  the 


268         USE  OF  GENERAL  INF0R3IATI0N. 

eastern  shore  of  the  sea  of  Tiberias.  [Such  is  the  opinion  of 
Schleusner  and  also  of  Fischer  ;   but  the  point  must  not  be 
considered  as  certain.    See  Bretschneider  ad  v.  Bethsaida.] 
'  Also  Bocharfs  Phaleg,  and  Michaelis^  foreign  geography 
of  the  Hebrews.     Gottingen  1769. 

XLV.  In  the  next  place,  it  is  necessary  that 
the  interpreter  should  be  well  acquainted  with 
the  geography  of  Asia,  especially  of  Asia 
Minor,  of  the  j3^gean  Sea  and  its  islands,  of 
Greece  and  Italy ;  all  of  which  are  repeatedly 
referred  to  both  in  the  Acts  and  in  the  Epis- 
tles. On  these  points  Cellarius  is  the  best 
guide.  J.  A.  Fahricius  gives  a  catalogue  of 
the  churches  founded  by  the  Apostles,  with 
notes,  in  his  Lux  Salut.  Evang.  c.  6.* 

*  See  also  Asia,  in  the  larger  geography  of  Busching. 
[Thus  if  it  be  asked  when  St.  Paul  could  possibly  have 
visited  Illyria,  Rom.  xv.  19,  we  answer  it  must  have  been 
on  that  visit  to  Macedonia  mentioned  in  Acts  xx.  2.  See 
Paleifs  H.  P.  ad  loc.  Morus  imagines  it  to  have  been  on 
his  former  visit,  mentioned  in  Acts  xvii.  1,  because  he  then 
passed  through  Apollonia,  and  Apollonia  is  a  city  on  the 
borders  of  Illyria.  There  is  such  a  town  on  that  border, 
but  then  there  was  also  another  Apollonia  in  Chalcidice,  al- 
most in  the  direct  road  between  Amphipolis  and  Thessalo- 
nica ;  which  must  evidently  be  the  town  intended  in  Acts 
xvii.  1.] 

XLVI.  In  questions  of  this  sort  it  is  very 
important  to  know  the  limits,  names,  and   va- 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  269 

rious  kinds  of  Roman  provinces.  For  the 
names  are  sometimes  adapted  to  tbe  civil  go- 
vernment and  arrangement  of  the  provinces  ; 
as,  for  example,  all  that  portion  of  Europe 
which  is  contained  between  the  Ionian  Sea, 
called  in  Acts  xxvii.  27,  Adria,  on  the  one 
side,  the  ^gean  on  the  other,  and  the  ridge  of 
Pangseus  and  river  Nestus  on  the  north,  is 
comprehended  under  the  names  of  Macedonia 
and  Achaia,  because  all  that  country  was  di- 
vided into  two  Roman  provinces  bearing  these 
names.  The  ancient  Macedonia  and  Achaia 
were  of  much  narrower  extent.  Luke,  there- 
fore, calls  Philippi  a  city  of  Macedonia,  where- 
as, according  to  the  old  arrangement,  it  was  a 
city  of  Thrace.*^  Still  the  old  divisions  are 
sometimes  employed;  thus,  in  Acts  xx.  2, 
Grcecia  is  used  in  its  ancient  and  proper  sense, 
for  the  country  intervening  between  Thessaly 
and  Peloponnesus,  or  for  the  whole  province 
of  Achaia;  as  in  Suetonius  Claudius,  16,  on 
which  see  my  notes. 

^  The  passage  alluded  to  is  Acts  xvi.  12.  But  it  may  be 
doubted  whether  the  author  has  not  made  a  slip  of  memory. 
See  Liv.  xlv.  29.  [By  the  author  Ammon  means  Ernesti, 
not  St.  Luke.  Livy  says  in  the  place  quoted,  that  one  of 
the  four  divisions  of  Macedon  was  the  country  between  the 
Strymon  and  Nestus,  which  included  Philippi.] 


270  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

XLVII.  While  Rome  was  free,  the  empire 
was  divided  into  provinces  of  two  kinds,  the 
one  called  Consular^  the  other  PrcBtorian ;  of 
which  the  former,  being  larger,  or  of  more  po- 
litical importance,  were  governed  by  men  of 
Consular  rank,  the  latter  by  men  who  had  held 
the  office  of  Prsetor.  In  the  reigrn  of  Aiij^us- 
tus,  the  Consular  provinces  were  placed  under 
the  direct  control  of  the  Emperor,  and  were 
administered  by  Legates,  generally  of  Consu- 
lar rank ;  while  the  Praetorian  were  left  under 
the  control  of  the  Senate  and  people,  and  were 
governed  by  a  Proconsul,  as  Asia  was ;  see 
Acts  xix.  38.  There  was  again  a  third  class 
of  smaller  provinces,  retained  by  the  Emperor, 
and  governed  in  general  by  men  of  equestrian, 
or  even  of  lower  rank,  under  the  title  of  Pro- 
curators ;  of  these  Judea  was  one,  as  we  have 
before  observed.  In  order  to  get  a  clear  know- 
ledge of  these  political  arrangements,  the  stu- 
dent will  do  well  to  study  the  xvii.  book  of 
Strabo,  towards  the  end.  Dio  Cassius,  1.  liii. 
and  my  Excursus  ad  Suet.  Aug.  47.  The  in- 
terpreters would  have  found  no  difficulty  in 
the  mention  o^Scrgius^  as  Proconsul  of  Cyprus, 
in  Acts  xiii.  17,  had  they  been  aware  of  this 
arrangement  of  the  provinces ;  according  to 
which    Cyprus  must   have    had  a    Proconsul. 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  271 

According  to  this  system,  the  Cyrenius  or  Qid- 
rinus,  mentioned  in  Luke  ii.  1,  must  have  been 
a  consular  legate  of  Caesar.*' 

"  [Dr.  Ammon  here  observes,  that  in  any  way  inextricable 
difficulties  will  remain  as  to  the  chronology  of  this  verse, 
and  he  has  before  advanced  the  same  opinion.  See  the  point 
considered  in  Bibl.  Cab.  ErnestVs  Inst.  vol.  I.  p.  173. 
note.] 

XLVIII.  We  must  also  learn  to  distingruish 
between  the  diflferent  classes  of  cities ;  some 
being  allied  cities,  others  Roman  colonies^  the 
planting  of  which  even  beyond  the  sea,  com- 
menced in  the  time  of  the  Gracchi,  and  be- 
came common  under  Julius  and  Augustus. 
Among  these  were  Philippi,  Corinth^  and 
others.  These  considerations  may  sometimes 
throw  light  upon  passages  of  Scripture ;  as  in 
Acts  xvi.  20,  we  may  thus  determine  who  the 
(SToarriyoi  were,  whom  Hammond  erroneously 
supposes  to  be  the  same  with  those  mentioned 
in  Luke  xxii.  52,  whereas  they  w^ere  colonial 
magistrates,  the  duumvir:  in  my  opinion;  see 
Cic.  Agr.  ii.  84,  and  also  Valesius  ad  Euseb. 
H.  E.  vii.  12.  Hence  also  w^e  may  learn  that 
the  '^alSdovxoi,  V.  35,  were  lictors  bearing  staves 
instead  of  fasces.     See  Cicero  as  above  quoted. 

XLIX.  There  is  also  a  distinction  of  dig- 


272  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

nity  in  cities,  some  having  the  rank  of  me- 
tropolis^ others  possessing  supreme  courts  of 
Justice.  Philippi  was  clearly  a  metropolis, 
being  called  in  Acts  xvi.  12,  [Moibog  Ma- 
xsdoviag  Todorri,  (See  Spanheim  cle  usu  et  prsp- 
stantia  Numismatum,  Diss.  ix.  16,)  of  that 
part,  namely,  which  was  transferred  from 
Thrace  to  Macedon,  and  called  Ic/xt-j^t-oc.  By 
metropolis  we  mean  the  chief  city  and  head 
of  the  province,  the  residence  of  the  governor  ; 
thus,  after  the  expulsion  of  Archelaus,  Jeru- 
salem was  the  capital  of  Judea,  but  after  the 
death  of  Agrippa  the  elder,  the  seat  of  govern- 
ment was  at  Csesarea,  Acts  xxiii.  33.  From 
this  civil  distinction  arose  the  distinction  of 
metropolitan  churches,  although  we  find  no  men- 
tion of  these  in  the  New  Testament.  Peter 
Marca,  indeed,  see  his  Concord.  Sac.  et  Imp. 
vi.  1,  5,  thinks  he  finds  it  in  Titus  i.  5.  We 
have  an  instance  of  a  town  distinguished  as  the 
seat  of  the  supreme  court,  in  Acts  xix.  38,  under 
the  term  ayo^ahg.^ 

•*  [It  is  not  so  clear  what  is  to  be  understood  by  the  ex- 
pression ay'o^am  ayovrcti  Our  version  renders  it  the  law  is 
open  ;  but  the  margin,  with  better  judi,^nient,  as  is  usual, 
renders  it  the  court-days  are  kept.  So  uyovn  tov  ayo^aiet. 
.Joseph.  Ant.  xiv.  10,  21.  See  Krebsii  Obs.  p.  239,  and 
JS  J*'  Ellipses  Or.  ed.  Schaefer,  p.  178.     l?ut  Ernesti  has  nut 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  273 

made  out  that  there  ever  was  a  supreme  court  except  in  the 
metropolis :  for  Ephesus,  -where  these  ayo^aioi  were  held, 
was  certainly  the  metropolis  of  Proconsular  Asia.] 

L.  With  respect  to  geographical  knowledge 
in  general,  I  would  advise  the  student  to  apply 
himself  to  it  continuously  and  systematically  ; 
and  not  to  suppose  that  he  can  ever  attain  an 
adequate  knowledge,  merely  by  turning  to 
geographical  books  when  he  is  in  a  difficulty, 
and  to  acquiring  his  information  gradually. 
I  would  also  advise  him  not  to  spend  much 
time  and  labour  upon  minute  geographical 
questions,  respecting  which  the  learned  are 
not  agreed,  as  for  instance,  whether  Cana  was 
in  Upper  or  Lower  Galilee ;  whether  Nicopo- 
lis,  mentioned  in  the  Epistle  to  Titus,  be  in 
Epirus  or  in  Thrace ;  or  whether  Decapolis  be 
a  portion  of  Galilee  or  of  Persea. 

LI.  To  geography  we  must  add  chronology, 
with  respect  to  which  there  are  many  difficul- 
ties in  the  New  Testament  of  no  easy  solution. 
And  for  this  purpose,  we  must  first  endeavour 
to  determine  the  chronology  of  certain  periods 
in  the  Old  Testament  history ;  as  for  instance, 
of  the  time  which  elapsed  between  the  pro- 
mise made  to  Abraham,  and  the  liberation  of 
Israel  from  Egytian  bondage ;  of  the  duration 
of  that  bondage  (see  Acts  vii.  6,  Gah  iii.  17); 


274       USE  or  general  information. 

of  the  interval  between  the  entry  into  Canaan 
and  the  first  appointment  of  kings,  (Acts  xiii. 
20) ;  finally,  the  fixing  of  the  seventy  years  of 
the  Babylonish  captivity,  and  the  commence- 
ment of  Daniel's  seventy  weeks.^  All  of  these 
points  are  more  or  less  connected  with  the  de- 
termination of  the  exact  date  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  respecting  which  there  have  been  many 
disputes  among  the  learned.  The  student 
will  do  well  to  consult  the  Isagocje  ChronoL 
of  Vossius,  who  has  treated  these  and  similar 
subjects  with  great  care,  or  P^itringah  Hypotyp. 
Hist,  ct  Chron. 

*  First,  however,  the  stiident  had  better  consult  Eich- 
horn's  Allg.  Bibliothek  d.  bibl.  Lit.  iii.  p.  7GI.  And  re- 
specting chronology  in  general,  Frank'' $  Novum  Systema, 
with  the  preface  of  Gatterer,  Gottingen  1778.  [In  chro- 
nology, and  history  considered  chronologically,  British  liter- 
ature is  rich.  We  may  mention,  the  Sacred  and  Profane 
History  of  the  world  connected,  &c.  by  S.  Shuckford.  The 
Old  and  New  Testament  connected,  &c.  by  H.  Prideaux. 
A  new  Analysis  of  Chronology,  &c.  by  JV.  Ilales^  D.  D. 
1812.  Connexion  of  Sacred  and  Profane  History,  &c.  by 
M.  Russell,  LL.  D.  1827] 

LI  I.  The  chronological  questions  peculiar 
to  the  New  Testament  are,  in  the  first  place, 
those  which  relate  to  Jesus  himself,  as  the  year 
of  his  birth,  and  the  number  of  the  passovers 
which  occurred  during  his  ministry ;  and  upon 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.        275 

these  depends  another  question,  namely,  in 
what  year  of  his  life  our  Saviour  died.  On 
none  of  these  questions  are  commentators 
agreed,  althoug'h  entire  commentaries  have 
been  written  upon  some  of  them ;  and,  indeed, 
the  most  learned  men  have  confessed  their  in- 
ability to  solve  these  difficulties ;  so  that  it 
would  be  the  height  of  presumption  rashly  to 
give  a  decision  upon  them.  These  questions, 
however,  with  the  various  arguments  for  and 
against  particular  solutions,  ought  to  be  known 
to  the  interpreter ;  so  that  he  may  be  enabled 
to  distinguish  what  is  certain  from  what  is  un- 
certain ;  and  thus  be  enabled,  at  any  rate,  to 
see  what  is  probable,  and  avoid  falling  into 
ridiculous  errors.*^ 

*  [Dr.  Aramon,  who  appears  to  have  an  absolute  passion 
for  finding  discrepancies  in  the  gospel  narratives,  here  ob- 
serves that  Matthew  represents  the  birth  of  Jesus  as  having 
taken  place  in  the  house  of  Joseph,  while  Luke  says  it  took 
place  in  an  inn.  He  refers  to  Matt.  i.  25,  ii.  1,  where  no- 
thing is  said,  but  that  the  birth  took  place  at  Bethlehem. 
He  also  finds  great  difficulty  in  the  passages,  John  i.  46, 
vii.  41,  as  if  it  were  wonderful  that  the  Jews,  who  knew 
that  Jesus  had  been  educated  at  Nazareth,  and  that  his 
mother  had  resided  there  before  his  birth,  should  suppose 
he  was  born  there,  and  call  him  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  He 
then  asserts  that  iMatt.  ii.  22,  Imke  ii.  2,  iii.  1.  23,  "  in 
diversas  rationes  trahunt  lectorem."  On  these  texts  it  is 
impossible  to  comment  without  entering  into  the  entire 


276        USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

question  of  the  New  Testament  chronology ;  but  Ernesti 
has  already  taught  us  that  insoluble  difficulties  are  not  ne- 
cessarily discrepancies.  The  difficulty  of  determining  the 
dates  of  our  iSaviour's  life  and  death,  arise  much  from  the 
vagueness  of  the  expression  in  Luke  iii.  23.  Kat  av<ros  r,v  o 
'Itjffovs  uffu  \ruv  Teidxovra  ci^^^^ofiivos.^ 

LIII.  One  of  the  most  important  questions 
for  the  determination  of  the  interpreter,  is  the 
date  of  St.  Paul's  conversion ;  on  which  de- 
pends the  calculation  of  the  epochs  mentioned 
by  him,  in  Gal.  i.  18,  ii.  1 ;  the  date  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Jerusalem,  Acts  xv. ;  of  St  Paul's  jour- 
neys to  Jerusalem,  Gal.  i.  18,  Acts  ix.  26,  of 
the  Epistles ;  and  finally,  of  St.  Paul's  arrival 
at  Rome.  On  this  head,  Pearson's  Annal. 
Paulin.  may  first  be  consulted,  who,  with  most 
of  the  Fathers,  places  St.  Paul's  conversion 
in  the  second  year  after  the  dea'h  of  Christ; 
and  Fr.  Spanheim^  who  places  it  in  the  sixth 
or  seventh  year.  The  series  of  dates  relating 
to  St.  Paul  is  particularly  worthy  of  attention  ; 
Pearson  and  Usher,  in  his  Annales,  have  both 
treated  this  subject  carefully,  without  net^lect- 
iii^  the  dates  relative  to  the  other  Apostles.^ 

s  [Chronological  difficulties  still  remain,  and  will  proliably 
for  ever  remain,  in  the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. But  it  is  poor  reasoning  to  allow  these  difficulties  to 
throw  any  shade  of  doubt  upon  the  truth  of  the  narrative. 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  '277 

Besides  the  works  already  mentioned,  the  reader  may  con- 
sult NoesseWs  Diss,  de  tempore  quo  scripta  fuit  Epist. 
Pauli  ad  Hebrseos  ;  and  his  Conject  ad  hist.  Ep.  Jacobi,  the 
former  in  his  Opuscula  Fasc.  I.  No.  10.  The  latter  Fasc. 
II.  No.  12.] 

LIV.  The  system  of  these  dates  is  also  con- 
nected with  that  of  others,  as,  for  example, 
with  the  dates  of  the  accessions  of  the  succes- 
sive Roman  emperors  and  Herods,  and  of  the 
governors  of  Syria  and  Judea ;  or  must  be  com- 
pared with  these  for  the  sake  of  evidence, 
which  it  may  be  impossible  to  procure  without 
such  a  comparison.  Therefore,  the  chronology 
of  the  reigns  of  Augustus,  Tiberius,  Caligula, 
Claudius  and  Nero,  ought  to  be  well  studied ; 
and  the  different  methods  of  datino-  the  acces- 
sions  of  the  Caesars,  especially  Augustus  and  Ti- 
berius. Thus  the  learned  differ  as  to  the  date 
of  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius,  mentioned 
in  Luke  iii.  1,  on  which  depends  the  date  of 
the  crucifixion ;  some  in  the  ordinary  way, 
fixing  the  commencement  of  his  reign  at  the 
death  of  Augustus,  others  with  Pagius^  at  the 
beginning  of  his  proconsular  government,  see 
Sueton.  Tib.  xxi.,  or  his  appointment  as  a  col- 
league in  the  empire.  Tacit  Ann.  i.  3,  by  the 
granting  of  the  tribunitial  power,  and  autho- 
rity over  all  the  provinces.^ 


278         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

^  [Augustus  died  in  August,  A.  U.  C.  TG"].  Suetoniug 
places  the  commencement  of  Tiberius 's  collegiate  reign  not 
long  after  his  triumph  in  765.  But  again  a  new  discre- 
pancy arises,  if  we  turn  to  Velleius  Paterculus,  2,  121,  who 
places  the  grant  of  imperial  authority  before  the  triumph, 
and  even  before  his  return  from  Germany ;  that  is,  at  any 
rate,  a  year  before  its  date  according  to  Suetonius.  See 
the  points  illustrated,  as  far  as  they  admit  of  illustration,  in 
Kuinoel  Notes  on  Luke,  iii.  1.] 

LV.  Nor  are  the  dates  coiiiiectecl  with  the 
family  of  the  Herods  less  involved.  The  birth 
of  Christ  took  place  in  the  last  year  of  the 
life  of  Herod  the  Great,  perhaps  but  a  few 
months  before  his  death ;  and  the  whole  of  his 
ministry,  together  with  that  of  the  Apostles, 
were  cotemporaneous  with  the  reigns  of  his 
three  sons,  Archelaus,  Antipas,  and  Philip, 
and  afterwards  of  the  elder  and  younger  Agrip- 
pa^  of  whom  the  latter  survived  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem.  Josephus  has  marked  the 
chronology  of  the  Herods  with  considerable 
care,  and  it  has  been  illustrated  by  many 
writers ;  still,  however,  there  exist  difficulties 
and  differences  of  opinion  among  the  learned. 

LVl.  As  the  okl  Roman  chronology  pro- 
ceeded upon  the  succession  of  consuls,  so  that 
of  the  Jews  was  marked  by  the  succession  of 
High  Priests.  This  principle  is  recognised 
in  Liihe  iii.  1,  and  the  succession  is  careftdly 


USE  OF  GENERAL   INFORMATION.         279 

noted  by  Josephus  in  his  antiquities.  But  at 
the  period,  whose  history  is  narrated  in  the 
New  Testament,  the  arbitrary  changes  in  the 
succession  made  by  Herod  and  the  Romans, 
rendered  it  very  difficult  to  apply  the  succes- 
sion to  chronological  purposes. 

LVII.  Whenever  we  reason  upon  ancient 
chronology,  two  points  are  to  be  kept  in  mind  : 
first,  that  the  concluding  and  commencing 
years  are  not  necessarily  entire,  but  may  be 
any  fractions  of  years ;  and  next,  that  the  pre- 
ceding year  is  sometimes  counted,  and  that  is 
reckoned  the  second  which  we  should  call  the 
first.  Thus,  an  event  which  is  said  to  have 
occurred  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius, 
may  really  have  happened  little  more  than 
twelve  years  after  his  accession.' 

^  [Of  the  first  of  these  observations,  we  have  a  striking 
instance  in  the  period  during  which  Christ  lay  in  the  grave. 
It  is  called  three  days,  and  yet  we  know  that  it  was  little 
more  than  one  day.  The  latter,  the  translator  is  unaVde 
to  illustrate,  not  being  aware  that  the  fact  is  as  represent- 
ed.] 

LVm.  In  all  calculations  of  this  sort,  we 
must  be  on  our  guard  against  two  things.  First, 
we  must  be  careful  not  rashly  to  assume  some 
undemonstrated  element,  and  thence  to  deduce 


280  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

Other  points  as  uncertain,  as  that  which  we 
have  assumed,  an  error  very  common  in  en- 
quiries of  this  sort ;  and  secondly,  not  to  waste 
much  of  our  time  upon  subjects  where  the 
learned  have  agreed,  that  certainty  cannot  be 
arrived  at.  If  these  two  errors  are  carefully 
avoided,  the  student  of  theology  may  usefully 
devote  a  portion  of  his  time  to  the  study  of 
chronology.  We  must  now  oifer  a  few  re- 
marks on  history,  and  on  the  knowledge  of 
rites  and  customs. 

LIX.  The  importance  of  historical  and  an- 
tiquarian knowledge  to  an  interpreter  of  the 
New  Testament,  must  be  manifest  to  every 
one  who  considers  how  large  a  portion  of  its 
contents  is  closely  connected  with  the  history, 
rites  and  customs  of  the  age  in  which  it  was 
written.  And  the  acquisition  of  this  know- 
ledge, as  applicable  to  the  sacred  books,  is 
more  difficult  than  it  is  in  reference  to  other 
ancient,  Latin,  and  Greek  writings;  for  these 
in  general  relate  only  to  one  people,  whereas, 
in  the  New  Testament,  we  perpetually  find  a 
mixture  of  Jewish,  Greek,  and  Roman  affairs. 
Nor  is  a  mere  general  acquaintance  with  the 
subject  sufficient ;  it  must  be  both  extensive 
and  accurate,  drawn  from  the  original  autho- 
rities by  one  qualified  to  judge  of  the  precise 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  281 

nieauing  of  the  language  which  they  employ. 
He,  therefore,  who  in  these  matters  depends 
upon  the  mere  assertions  of  expositors,  will 
never  be  able  to  proceed  with  security,  nor  to 
distinguish  truth  from  falsehood.  The  student 
will,  therefore,  act  wisely  who  lays  in  a  good 
provision  of  historical  and  antiquarian  know- 
ledge, before  he  proceeds  to  interpret  Scrip- 
ture. Even  up  to  the  present  time  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  are  in  direct  opposition 
to  many  disgraceful  errors,  into  which  even  the 
most  celebrated  interpreters  have  fallen. 

LX.  Nor  are  the  writings  of  those  authors 
to  be  neglected,  who  have  contributed  to  this 
subject,  either  by  illustrating  some  portion  of 
it,  or  by  correcting  vulgar  errors.  But  of 
these  a  selection  must  be  made ;  and  the  stu- 
dent will  do  well  in  this  matter  to  take  the 
advice  of  some  learned  man,  well  skilled  in 
such  enquiries,  who  will  inform  him  whether 
any  particular  book  is  compiled  from  original 
authorities,  or  from  the  common  histories, 
lexicons,  and  academical  disputations,  in  which 
it  is  rare  to  find  any  thing  worth  reading.  I 
would  recommend  a  careful  perusal  of  Scaliger's 
Animadversiones  in  Eusebii  Chronicon,  and  his 
Emendatio  temporum,^  in  which  many  vulgar 
errors  are  confuted.     The  corrections  of  Ba- 


282  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

ronim's  Annals  by  Pagius  and  Camuhon  ;  the 
notes  of  Valesius  on  the  first  book  of  Eusebius ; 
the  tracts  of  Perizonius  relative  to  chronology  ; 
and  any  others,  if  there  be  others  who,  like 
these,  are  models  of  accuracy  and  clear  ar- 
rangement. It  will  ])e  better  to  postpone  the 
writings  of  authors  of  a  second  class,  such  as 
Basnage,  and  F.  Spanheim,  until  the  judgment 
is  ripened  by  time  and  experience,  to  distin- 
guish between  truth  and  falsehood,  between 
certainty  and  uncertainty.  I  shall  now  en- 
deavour, by  offering  a  few  brief  directions  as 
to  the  proper  method  of  pursuing  each  parti- 
cular subject,  to  lead  the  student  into  the  right 
way. 

''  The  chronological  works  of  J".  J.  Scaliger  will  be  found 
in  the  Thesaurus  Temporum^  &c.  Amst.  IG58. 

LXI.  In  tlie  first  place,  then,  the  historj^, 
habitation,  offices,  rites,  and  customs,  both  civil 
and  religious,  of  the  Jewish  people,  ought  to 
be  thoroughly  studied;  and  they  ought  to  be 
known,  not  only  as  they  existed  during  our 
Saviour's  ministry  and  the  age  of  the  Apostles, 
but  also  throughout  their  history ;  for  many 
allusions  are  made  in  the  gospels  to  more  an- 
cient times.     The  earlier  antiquities  are  to  be 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  283 

studied  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  later  ones 
in  the  writings  of  cotemporary  Jewish,  Greek, 
and  Roman  authors. 

LXII.  The  student  then  will  remember 
that  there  having  been  originally  twelve  tribes  ; 
ten,  whose  capital  was  Samaria,  a  name  after- 
wards o-iven  to  the  whole  country,  were  carried 
off  into  Assyria  by  Salmanassar.  Their  place 
was  supplied  by  a  colony  of  Cuthites,  who  took 
the  name  of  Samaritans,  and  adopted  a  religion 
similar  to  that  which  Jeroboam  had  formerly 
established  in  the  same  country,  with  probably 
some  admixture  of  their  own  previous  opinions. 
This  system  of  religion  appears  to  have  been 
reformed,  and  purified  from  idolatrous  ad- 
juncts by  Manasses.  This  Manasses  had  been 
degraded  from  the  priesthood  at  Jerusalem,  on 
account  of  his  marriage  with  a  foreigner;  and, 
through  the  interest  of  his  father-in-law  San- 
ballat,  obtained  from  Alexander  the  Great  a 
licence  to  build  a  temple  at  Samaria,  in  imita- 
tion of  that  at  Jerusalem.  He  was  accompanied 
in  his  banishment  by  many  Jews,  who  deserted 
their  country  for  the  same  reason,  see  Jose- 
phus^  Antiq.  xi.  ad  Jinem.  Though  this  temple 
was  destroyed  by  John  Hyrcanus,  yet  the  Sa- 
maritan mode  of  worship  continued  to  be  cele- 
brated on  Mount  Gerizim;  and  it  appears  {John 


284         USE   OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

iv.  25)  that  even  the  vulgar  Samaritans,  in  the 
time  of  our  Saviour,  had  more  correct  notions 
respecting-  Messiah  than  the  Jews  had.  But 
respecting  the  Samaritans  the  reader  may  con- 
sult Walton  in  Apparat.  Bibl.  Proleg.  xi.,  and 
Reland's  Palestine.' 

'  See  also  the  observations  of  Schnurrer  on  the  Samaritans 
in  Eichhorn's  Repert.  ix.  I,  seq.  and  in  Paulus's  Repert. 
T.  i.  p.  120. 

LXIII.  A  like  calamity  befel  the  two  re- 
maining tribes  which  constituted  the  kingdom  of 
Judea,  when  the  whole  people,  with  their  king, 
were  carried  away  into  Chaldea  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, king  of  Babylon.  They  were  restored, 
however,  by  a  decree  of  Cyrus,  and  the  Jew- 
ish commonwealth  was  re-established  in  its 
original  habitation.  It  must  be  understood, 
however,  that  many  who  had  acquired  pro- 
perty and  established  connections,  remained  at 
Babylon  ;  preferring  to  enjoy  a  certainty  even 
in  banishment,  than  to  risk  the  chances  of  a 
return  to  their  own  country.  And  these, 
uniting  with  the  Israelites  who  had  been  car- 
ried into  captivity  by  the  Assyrians,  main- 
tained the  profession  of  their  religion  in  Baby- 
lon, and  beyond  the  Euphrates,  and  are  men- 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  285 

tioned  in  Acts  ii.  9.  From  among  these  ap- 
pears to  have  arisen  the  Christian  church  of 
Babylon,  1  Peter  v.  13,  the  doctrines  of  Ju- 
daism having'  prepared  the  way  for  the  recep- 
tion of  Christianity ;  for  that  Babylon,  in  the 
text  quoted,  cannot  mean  Rome,  is  well  de- 
monstrated by  Scaliger  in  his  Canon,  Isagog. 
1.  iii.  epoch  13,  p.  283,  seq.™ 

™  [Some  ancient  interpreters,  especially  in  the  Coptic 
chui-ch,  understand  by  Babylon,  Egyptian  Babylon  near 
Cairo;  some  of  the  Fathers,  see  Eusebius  H.  E.  ii.  15,  and 
among  the  moderns  Grotius,  Lardner,  and  Cow^,  imagine  that 
Kome  is  intended  :  Erasmus,  Wetstein,  and  others,  take  it 
as  Ernesti  does,  to  mean  Babylon  properly  so  called,  and 
this  is  certainly  the  more  probable  interpretation.  See  D. 
J.  Pott,  Proleg  in  1  Ep.  Pet.  p.  14,  or  rather  Marsh'' s  Mi- 
chaelis,  T.  iv.  p.  328.] 

LXIV.  But  as  we  know  from  Jeremiah, 
that  the  Jewish  nation  was  not  totally  carried 
oif  to  Babylon,  but  the  nobles  and  richer  classes 
only;  while  many  of  the  lower  class  were 
left  to  cultivate  the  land ;  so  we  may  naturally 
suppose,  that  in  the  land  of  Israel  also,  many 
of  the  labouring  classes  were  either  permitted 
to  remain,  or  escaped  the  notice  of  their  con- 
querors. And  when  the  Jews  were  permitted 
by  Cyrus  to  return  from  Babylon  to  their  own 
land,  many  of  Samaritan  origin,  availing  them- 


286  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

selves  of  the  opportunity,  returned  with  them. 
See  Usher's  Annales  ad  Ann.  3468,  and  Wit- 
sius  on  the  ten  tribes  towards  the  end  of  his 
^gyptiaca.  From  all  these  facts  we  may  un- 
derstand, why  St.  Matthew  speaks  of  the  house 
of  Israel,  xv.  24,  and  of  the  tril)es  of  Israel,  iv. 
15,  and  why  the  ticelve  tribes  are  mentioned  in 
James  i.  1,  when  in  all  these  passages  the  in- 
habitants of  Palestine  alone  are  intended  ;  or 
at  any  rate  the  descendants  of  Palestinian 
Jews.  For  the  same  reasons  we  may  see  how 
Anna  mentioned  in  Luke  ii.  36,  could  be  of 
the  tribe  of  Jser.  On  this  subject  the  reader 
may  consult  Walton's  Proleg,  ix.  4,  who  has 
also  made  use  of  the  arguments  of  Usher." 


"  [It  may  be  noticed,  in  confirmation  of  the  views  taken 
liy  Ernesti,  that  the  Samaritans  of  our  Saviour's  time  be- 
lieved themselves  to  be  descended,  not  from  converted 
Cuthites,  but  from  the  patriarchs  of  the  Jewish  and  Lsrael- 
itish  nations.  "  Art  thou  greater  than  our  father  .Jacob  ?" 
was  the  question  of  the  Samaritan  woman  to  Jesus  at  the 
well.  And  had  they  not  been  principally  of  the  race  of  Is- 
rael, it  is  difficult  to  account  either  for  this  supposition  on 
their  part,  or  for  the  decided  prevalence  of  Judaism  al<ove 
heathenism  in  their  national  religion.] 


LXV.  After  their  restoration  by  Cyrus,  the 
Jews  did  not  h)ng  continue  in  quiet  possession 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.    287 

of  their  own  country.  For,  in  the  first  place, 
a  great  number  of  them  were  forcibly  carried 
off  by  Ptolemy  Lagus  into  Egypt,  whither 
many  of  the  Israelites  had  before  retired  ;  (see 
Josephus  A.  J.  xii.  1,)  and  were  placed,  some 
in  Alexandria,  where  they  were  incorporated 
with  the  citizens,  and  others  in  the  cities  of 
Cyrenaica  and  Libya.  ( See  Josephus^  as  before 
quoted,  and  c.  Apion,  ii.  4.  Hence  light  may  be 
thrown  on  Acts  ii.  10,  vi,  9,  w^here  some  for 
Az/Ssgr/vwy  would  read  Ai^v(frivoJv,  See  Gi^otius 
on  the  text,  and  Wesseling  de  Archont.  Jucl.  p. 
24.  For  the  history  of  the  Jews  in  these 
countries  the  reader  must  consult  Philo's  Le- 
gatio  ad  Caium^  and  his  Oratio  in  Flaccum, 
which  tracts  I  recommend  to  the  perusal  of  the 
student.  Hence  it  is  probable  they  migrated 
as  colonists  into  Cyprus,  which  was  brought 
into  subjection  to  Egypt  by  the  same  Ptolemy ; 
see  Acts  xiii.  4,  xi.  20. 

LXVI.  While  Palestine  formed  a  part  of 
the  kingdom  of  the  Seleucidse,  the  Jews  mi- 
grated in  large  bodies  to  the  new  cities  of 
Syria  and  Asia,  especially  to  Antioch,  being 
tempted  by  the  liberal  promises  of  Seleucus 
Nicator.  See  Joseph,  xii.  3.  Hence  originated 
that  large  body  of  Jews,  and  subsequently  of 
Christians,  which  existed  at  Antioch,  almost 


288  USE  OF  GENERAL   INFORMATION. 

immediately  after  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel 
had  extended  beyond  the  limits  of  Judea,  Acts 
xi.  205  seq. 

LXVII.  Though  the  Jews  had  thus  formed 
settlements  in  many  cities,  yet  they  were  af- 
terwards still  more  attracted  to  the.commercial 
cities  both  of  Europe  and  Asia  by  the  prospect 
of  gain.     And  they  were  secured,  first  by  the 
alliance  subsisting  between  the  Romans  and 
the  Asmonean  princes,  see  Joseph.  A.  J.  xiii. 
17. ;  and  afterwards  by  the  protection  of  Julius 
Caesar,  from  whom  they  purchased  at  a  high 
price  the  right  of  exercising  their  religion  in 
any  part  of  the  Roman  empire  without  molesta- 
tion, see  Joseph.  A.  J.  xiv.  10;  and  in  this  point 
Augustus  and  Tiberius  followed  the  policy  of 
Julius.    Synagogues,  therefore,  and  Proseucha^ 
were    established    everywhere,    especially    at 
Rome,  where  many  Jews  were  collected  during 
the  reign  of  Julius;  whose  regret  for  their  patron 
almost  led  them  into  sedition  on  his  assassination. 
The  number  of  Jews  at  Rome  still  increased, 
and  we  find  that  they  had  a  peculiar  quarter 
beyond  the  Tiber  allotted  for  their  residence, 
and  many  Proseuchse.     See  Philo's  Legat.  ad 
Caium,  p.  1014.     In  which  arrangement  we 
can  hardly  avoid  perceiving  a  providential  pre- 
paration for  the  reception  of  the  Gospel ;  for 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         289 

thus  the  Apostles  were  enabled  to  preach  the 
doctrines  of  Christianity  in  almost  every  city, 
and,  through  the  proselytes  to  Judaism,  to  com- 
municate it  to  the  heathen  also.  A  know- 
ledge of  these  circumstances  will  throw  light 
on  many  passages  in  the  Acts,  as  upon  chap, 
xxviii.  17;  on  the  ^/a^rTo^a  7wy  'EXX^^i/wi^,  John 
viii.  35,  on  James  i.  1,  and  1  Pet.  i.  1.  Thus 
also  we  may  understand  why  the  churches  at 
Rome,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch  were  from 
the  very  first  pre-eminent  in  numbers  and  dig- 
nity.** 

°  [Horace  in  his  ninth  Satire,  Lib.  I.  bears  a  strong  testi- 
mony to  the  numbers  and  importance  of  the  Jews  at  Rome 
in  the  time  of  Augustus.  If  Fuscus  Aristius  could,  even  in 
jest,  cal]  himself  "  unus  multorum,"  because  he  respected 
the  "  tricesima  sabbata,"  the  Jews  must  have  been  of  suf- 
ficient consequence  to  make  their  festivals  generally  known 
and  respected  among  the  heathen  population  of  Rome.] 

LXVIII,  We  have  already  stated  under 
what  governors  the  Jews  were  placed  within 
the  limits  of  Palestine,  at  the  time  of  our 
Saviour,  and  in  the  Apostolic  age,  when  speak- 
ing of  the  geography  of  that  country.  Nor  is 
it  necessary  here  to  enter  into  a  detailed  ac- 
count of  the  family  of  the  Herods.  But  this 
is  a  subject  of  which  the  interpreter  ought  not 
to  be  ignorant ;  he  ought  to  be  aware  of  the 
u 


290  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

notices  of  them  given  by  Joscphus,  Dio,  and 
otiiers  ;  and  of  the  collections  of  these  notices, 
and  the  remarks  upon  them,  which  have  been 
made  by  the  learned,  either  in  books  specially 
dedicated  to  the  purpose,  as  by  Noldius,  or  in 
general  histories  as  by  Pagius  in  his  Crit.  Bar,; 
Valesius  in  his  Notes  on  Eusehius  ;  and  Reland 
in  his  Palestine.  The  notices  given  by  Jo- 
sephus  of  the  reigns  of  the  Herods,  and  by 
Philo  of  Pilate  and  the  two  Agrippas,  throw 
light  upon  many  passages  of  the  Acts.  To  the 
family  of  the  Herods  must  be  added  another 
Philip  ;P  not  the  uterine  brother  of  Antipas, 
but  the  son  of  Mariamne,  Joseph,  xviii.  1.3, 
14.  He  married  Herodias  the  daughter  of 
Aristohulus^  and  sister  of  the  elder  Agrippa,  by 
whom  he  had  a  daughter  Salome.  Herod  An- 
tipas took  this  Herodias  from  her  husband  and 
married  her,  on  which  account  he  was  re- 
proved by  the  Baptist,  Luke  iii.  19,  Matt, 
xiv.  3.     See  also  Deylincfs  Obs.  ii.  26,  20. 

P  [There  seems  little  occasion  for  liere  introducing  a  second 
tinie  the  history  of  Philip.  Though  the  institutio  does  not 
profess  to  enter  on  detail,  nor  does  the  translator  profess  to 
supply  itj  yet  it  may  be  useful  here  in  a  very  short  compass 
to  give  the  genealogy  of  the  Herodian  Family.  Herod  the 
Great,  son  of  Antipatcr  tlie  Idumean,  had  successively  four 
wives.  1. -/V/ariaw7ie  daughter  of  Alexander.  2.  Mariamne 
daughter  of  Simon.     3.  JMalthace.     4.  Cleopatra.     By  the 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         291 

first  Mariamne  he  had  a  son  Aristobulus :  by  the  second, 
the  Philip  above  mentioned :  by  Malthace,  Archelaus  and 
Herod  Antipas:  and  by  Cleopatra,  Philip,  tetrarch  of  Iturea- 
Of  these  sons  of  Herod  the  Great,  Aristobulus  alone  had 
descendants,  namely  Agrippa  the  elder,  Herod  king  of 
Chalcis,  and  the  Herodias  above  mentioned.  Agrippa  had 
two  sons,  Agrippa  the  younger  and  Driisus,  and  two 
daughters,  Berenice  and  Drusilla,  married  first  to  Aziz  king 
of  Emesa  and  then  to  Felix.  Herod  king  of  Chalcis  mar- 
ried his  niece  Berenice  just  mentioned,  and  afterwards 
Mariamne,  by  whom  he  had  a  son,  Aristobulus,  king  of  Lesser 
Armenia.  See  Brotier's  Notse  and  Emend,  in  Taciti  Ann. 
T.  ii.  p.  384.] 

LXIX.  In  the  noted  passage,  Luke  iii.  1, 
Lysanias  is  mentioned  as  tetrarch  of  Abilene. 
He  must  not  be  confounded  with  another  Ly- 
sanias, son  of  Ptolemy  Menneeus,  who  held  the 
same  government  more  than  sixty  years  be- 
fore On  the  death  of  this  first  Lysanias, 
the  province  was  given  by  Antony  to  Cleo- 
patra, and  afterwards  on  the  fall  of  these,  it 
was  farmed  by  a  certain  Zenodorus.  St.  Luke 
appears  to  have  mentioned  this  province,  be- 
cause there  were  many  Jews  resident  in  it ; 
and  because  Jesus  himself  visited  it  in  the 
course  of  his  ministry.  Such  I  find  to  be  the 
opinion  of  Casauhon,  who  has  given  an  accu- 
rate account  of  the  tetrarchs  of  Abilene  in  his 
Exerc.  Baron,  xiii.  3.^ 

*i  [Ammon  supposes  that  St.  Luke  was  mistaken  in  the 


292  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

chronology  of  the  age.  Kuinoel,  to  whom  he  refers,  coincides 
in  the  opinion  of  SUskind,  that  there  were  at  diflferent 
periods  two  tetrarchs  of  Abilene  of  the  name  of  Lysanias, 
and  that  we  must  believe  the  existence  of  the  latter,  as  we 
do  many  other  historical  facts,  on  the  uncontradicted,  though 
unsupported,  evidence  of  one  credible  witness.] 

LXX.  We  have  already  lAentioned  who 
and  what  the  Roman  procurators  were ;  a  few 
observations  remain  to  be  added.  First,  then, 
we  may  remark,  that  their  power  was  entirely 
civil ;  for  though  they  had  the  command  of  a 
few  soyiers,  yet  these  were  only  for  the  pur- 
pose of  garrisoning  citadels,  guarding  prisons, 
conducting  the  execution  of  prisoners,  and 
services  of  the  like  kind,  see  Matt,  xxvii.  27, 
Acts  xxii.  ol.  And  though  Judea  is  rightly 
called  by  Josephus  TPoff^yj-Ar}  '2-j^lag,  yet  its  pro- 
curator was  no  more  under  the  orders  of  the 
legate  of  Syria  than  the  governors  of  Cyrenaica 
were  under  the  prefects  of  Egypt;  though 
Cyrenaica  was  always  considered  as  a  pro- 
vince dependent  upon  Egypt.  The  procurators 
had  power  of  life  and  death,  John  xix.  10,  and 
an  appeal  from  their  sentence  was  addressed, 
not  to  the  legate  of  Syria,  but  to  Csesar  himself, 
Acts  XXV.  11.  The  connection  between  the 
governments  of  Judea  and  Syria  extended  to 
this,  that  when  some  important  act  was  to  be 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.        293 

carried  into  effect,  which  required  the  assist- 
ance of  the  military,  it  was  committed  to  the 
legate  of  Syria.  Of  this  kind  was  the  census 
instituted  by  Quirinus,  Luke  ii.  2,  Acts  v.  87, 
which  must  not  be  confounded  with  that  which 
occasioned  the  visit  of  the  Virgin  to  Bethle- 
hem, and  which  preceded  it,  [by  ten  years], 
as  Herwart  and  Perizonius  have  shewn  in  their 
tracts  on  the  subject.'  For  in  the  census  held 
by  Quirinus,  the  aid  of  the  military  force  was 
used,  as  appears  by  an  inscription  first  pub- 
lished by  Muratori,  and  illustrated  by  Wesse- 
ling.  From  what  has  been  advanced,  it  will 
appear  that  an  acquaintance  with  the  history 
of  the  governors  of  Syria,  which  was  consti- 
tuted a  province  by  Pompey,  may  also  be  use- 
ful to  the  interpreter.  The  information  on 
this  head,  first  collected  by  Casauhon  in  his 
Exerc.  Bar.  i.  3,  was  improved  and  corrected 
by  Noris  in  his  Cenotaph.  Pis.  i.  16,  and  com- 
pleted by  Pagius  in  his  CriL  Bar.  t.  i.  p.  23, 
24. 

'  [The  census  of  Quirinus  has  met  with  many  interpreta- 
tions ;  and  if  none  of  them  be  irresistibly  convincing,  yet 
several  of  them  contain  a  probability  of  truth.  The  reader 
may  find  them  all  detailed  in  Kninoel  on  Luke  ii.  2.  Am- 
mon  in  his  note  of  this  §,  as  also  in  two  tracts  on  the  sub- 
ject ;  holds  that  St.  Luke  was  mistaken.  Kuinoel  inclines 
to  suppose  the  mention  of  Quirinus  to  be  a  marginal  gloss 


294         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

which  has  crept  into  the  text.  See  this  text  referred  to  in 
Bib.  Cab.  No.  I.  p.  173,  174,  where  Ammon  speaks  very 
unintelligibly  on  the  subject  of  Christian  chronology.] 


LXXI.  Those  will  be  best  able  to  interpret 
the  notices  respecting  the  procurators  and  their 
acts  occurring  in  the  New  Testament,  who 
have  studied  the  system  of  provincial  govern- 
ment as  it  is  described  by  the  Latin  historians. 
For  instance,  they  will  be  aware  that  the 
prcBtorium  is  the  house  of  t\\e  procurator,  since 
such  is  the  proper  appellation  for  the  house  in 
which  a  provincial  magistrate  resided,  Matt, 
xxvii.  27.®  For  Cicero  in  his  Orations  against 
Verres,  says  expressly  that  the  pr^etorium  of 
Verres  was  the  ancient  palace  of  the  kings  of 
Syracuse.  Hence  we  conclude  that  the  prce- 
torium  of  Herod,  mentioned  in  Acts  xxiii,  was 
the  abode  of  the  procurator ;  whereas  in  Phil, 
i.  13,  we  must  understand  the  praetorian  camp 
at  Rome,  the  prefect  of  which  is  mentioned, 
Acts  xxviii.  16.'  They  will  be  avA'are  also  that 
the  procurator  held  his  court  in  the  open  air, 
or  in  a  portico,  which,  according  to  the  style  of 
that  age,  was  generally  paved  with  marble  ; 
whence  the  Xid6(^r^o)rov  mentioned  in  John  xix. 
13,  see  also  Sucton.  Cces.  46,  and  Ernesti's 
notes  on  that  passage ;  and  in  short  of  many 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         295 

Other  particulars  respecting  the  acts  and  juris- 
diction of  provincial  governors.  For  the  ac- 
quisition of  this  knowledge,  I  would  recom- 
mend a  careful  perusal  of  the  Second  Oration 
against  Verres^  as  describing  the  mode  of  trial 
and  punishment  in  Sicily.  There  exists  a 
treatise  by  Merillius  a  lawyer,  illustrating  the 
last  sufferings  and  death  of  Jesus  from  this 
oration.  I  would  also  advise  the  student  to 
compare  Acts  xxv.  "23,  with  1st  Cont.  Ver.  29. 
This  point  ought  to  be  carefully  studied ;  for 
even  learned  interpreters  have  fallen  into  grie- 
vous errors  through  ignorance  of  historical 
analogy  in  such  matters." 


*  [And  so  it  is  rightly  translated  in  the  margin  of  our 
authorized  version.  A  new  translation  would  be  a  most 
hazardous  undertaking,  but  it  is  worth  considering  whether 
it  would  not  be  advisable  generally  to  place  the  marginal 
readings  in  the  text,  as  being  the  more  faithful  representa- 
tion of  the  original.] 

*  [Neither  of  these  points  is  clear.  For  if  the  •;r^cnru^iov  in 
the  provinces  was  the  palace  of  the  governor  ;  what  more  pro- 
bable than  that  St.  Paul,  writing  from  Rome  to  the  provinces, 
should  call  the  palace  at  Rome,  the  residence  of  Caesar,  by 
the  same  name.  'S.-^a.TO'ziha.^^'/i?  occurs  but  once  in  the 
New  Testament ;  and  though  Krebs,  on  the  supposed  au- 
thority of  Josephus,  maintains  that  prisoners  from  the  pro- 
vinces were  committed  to  the  charge  of  the  Praatorian 
Praefect ;  yet  it  may  be  doubted  whether  the  one  example 
advanced  by  him,  Ant.  xviii.  C.  6,  proves  the  general  prac- 


296  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

tjce.  Besides,  the  Praetorian  Praefect  appears  to  have  been 
an  officer  of  far  too  high  a  rank  to  have  a  personal  charge 
of  a  prisoner  of  such  mean  rank  as  St.  Paul.] 

"  See  Faber^s  Archseol.  Heb.  i.  p.  103,  and  for  the  pre- 
ceding paragraph,  Krebsii  Opusc.  p.  135,  seq. 

LXXII.  Much  power  was  also  left  to  the 
Jewish  High  Priest ;  for  we  find  that  the  Ro- 
mans allowed  him  to  retain  a  jurisdiction  in 
all  matters  relating  to  religion,  and  to  punish 
oifenders,  but  not,  as  it  seems,  with  capital 
punishments,  John  xviii.  31 ;  for  the  condem- 
nation of  Stephen  by  the  Priests  and  Sanhe- 
drim, (Acts  viii.  59,)  ought  probably  to  be 
referred  to  the  times  of  Herod  Agrippa.^  An 
interpreter,  therefore,  ought  to  be  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  power  and  jurisdiction  of  the 
High  Priest,  especially  during  the  ministry  of 
our  Saviour  and  the  Apostolic  age,  when  it 
was  very  different  from  what  it  had  originally 
been.  For  the  Ptolemies  and  Seleucidse  as- 
sumed and  exercised  a  power  of  nominating- 
High  Priests,  without  regard  to  the  legimate 
order  of  succession,  always,  however,  selecting 
from  'the  legal  family ;  and  the  Herods  and 
Roman  procurators  went  still  further  than 
this,  and  at  pleasure  removed  one  High  Priest 
and  promoted  another  to  his  place ;  so  that 
thus,  there  might  be  at  the  same  time  many 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INrORMATION.         297 

High  Priests,  or,  to  speak  more  properly, 
many  men  of  Pontifical  rank.  To  remove  the 
difficulty  then  in  Luke  iii.  2,  Acts  iv.  6,  aris- 
ing from  the  mention  of  two  Priests,  and  re- 
specting which  the  opinions  of  the  learned 
have  been  so  various,  it  may  be  sufficient  to 
suppose,  that  those  who  had  been  Pligh  Priest 
retained  the  title,  together  with  a  certain  pre- 
eminence in  the  Sanhedrim,  even  after  their 
deposition.  That  Annas  should  possess  consi- 
derable authority,  appears  highly  probable, 
from  the  prudence  for  which  he  was  celebrated, 
the  injustice  of  his  deposition,  his  popularity, 
and  his  affinity  to  Caiphas  the  actual  High 
Priest,  by  whom  he  would  naturally  be  con- 
sulted in  all  points  of  important  difficulty  ;  and 
to  these  suppositions  we  are  directly  led  by 
John  xviii.  3.  This  I  find  to  be  the  opinion  of 
Valesius  on  Euseh.  i.  10.  The  systems  of  others, 
as  o^Scaliger  in  his  Proleg.  ad  Euseh.  of  Casau- 
hon  in  hhExerc.  ad  Bar.  x.  1,  xiii.  4,  and  of  Beza 
on  Mark  ii.  26,  and  are  examined  and  refuted 
by  Petavius  in  his  Doctr.  Temp.  x.  58,  who  is 
especially  to  be  consulted  on  the  succession 
of  High  Priests  from  A.  C.  49  to  58,  not  to 
mention  Walton  is  his  Apparatus,  and  others. 

^  [Ammon  holds  that  there  is  no  discrepancy  between 
these  texts,  nor  does  Ernesti  contend  there  is  :  the  only  dif- 


298         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

ference  is  as  to  tlie  principle  upon  which  they  are  to  be  re- 
conciled. Aramon  thinks  that  the  Sanhedrim  had  power 
of  inflicting  capital  punishment  for  religious  ofi^ences  even 
in  the  time  of  the  procurators.  But  if  so,  why  did  they 
apply  to  Pilate,  when  they  had  declared  Jesus  guilty  of  the 
capital  religious  crime  of  blasphemy.  Michaelis  thinks  that 
the  death  of  Stephen  was  the  tumultuous  act  of  a  mob,  not 
a  judicial  execution.  The  power  of  the  Sanhedrim  being 
religious  and  not  political,  extended  to  Jews  residing  be- 
yond the  limits  of  Palestine,  Acts  ix.  1,  2.] 

LXXIII.  The  council  of  the  High  Priest 
was  the  Sanhedrim  of  Jerusalem,  consisting, 
besides  the  High  Priest  as  president,  of  men 
who  had  been  High  Priests,  of  theologians 
and  interpreters,  the  persons  intended  by  the 
term  y^aiMfLareig  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
members  of  this  council  were  called  magistrates 
or  rulers,  (see  Valesius  ad  Euseb.  iii.  8,)  and 
senators  or  elders,  from  the  Mosaic  institution, 
Acts  iv.  5.  Much  has  been  collected  respect- 
ing the  Sanhedrim  from  Jewish  authors,  but 
their  information  is  of  little  value,  as  they  ge- 
nerally wrote  after  the  dissolution  of  that  body. 
All  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  had  the  title 
of  Ardion  ;  for  in  I  Mace.  i.  14,  27.  a^^oi/rgg 
means  members  of  the  Sanhedrim.  And  here 
it  may  be  worth  while  to  observe,  that  in  the 
Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  every 
magisterial    office,    however    insignificant,    is 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  299 

called  a^%)^,  and  tiie  person  holding  it  archon^ 
see  Exod.  ii.  13.  We  must  be  careful  then 
not  to  be  misled  in  such  matters  by  the  modern 
versions,  nor  to  imagine  any  higher  dignity 
than  the  context  admits  of.  Thus  I  woukl 
understand  aop/ovra  in  Luke  xii.  58,  who  is 
also  called  ytoirrn. 

LXXIV.  Among  the  archons  of  the  city 
we  must  also  reckon  the  ffl^alriyog  rov  hoo\j  Acts 
iv.  1,  who  is  ranked  between  the  priests  and  the 
senators,  or  members  of  Sanhedrim,  in  Luke 
xxii.  52.  2lsalriyog  is  used  by  the  Greeks  for  any 
magistrate,  civil  as  well  as  military,  as  we  see 
in  Acts  xvii.  26.  His  office  was  to  maintain 
quiet  and  order  in  the  temple  ;  and  that  he  was 
a  Jew,  appears  from  this,  that  he  assisted  the 
High  Priest  in  arresting  those  considered  as 
seditious,  without  the  intervention  of  the  Ro- 
man procurator. 

LXXV.  There  were  also  other  Jewish  ma- 
gistrates, allusions  to  whom  may  be  found  in 
the  New  Testament.  Beyond  the  limits  of 
Palestine  we  find  also  mention  of  Jewish  ar- 
chons in  ancient  monuments,  which  order  of 
magistrates  IVesseling  has  carefully  examined 
in  his  treatise  de  Archontihus  Jiidmorum ;  not 
neglecting  at  the  same  time  another  class,  of 
which  we  shall  speak  hereafter.     The  kings 


300  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

who  had  either  forced  or  invited  Jewish  colo- 
nies into  their  territories  ;  and  afterwards,  the 
Romans,  who  succeeded  to  the  authority  of 
these  kings,  allowed  the  Jewish  colonists  to 
have  magistrates  of  their  own,  to  judge  of 
matters  exclusively  religious,  and  perhaps  of 
civil  matters,  when  the  parties  were  both  Jews. 
That  such  was  the  case  under  the  Roman  go- 
vernment, appears  clearly  from  the  letter  of 
L.  Antonius  to  the  Sardians,  given  in  Jose- 
phus'  Ant.  xiv.  10,  17.  But  in  Egypt,  besides 
the  archons  in  the  several  towns,  mentioned 
in  a  Greek  inscription  of  the  town  of  Bereni- 
cea  in  Cyrenaica,  given  by  Maffei  in  his  An- 
tiq.  Gall.  Epist.  i.  8,  and  illustrated  by  Wesse- 
ling  in  the  treatise  above  mentioned,  there  was 
a  superior  magistrate  residing  at  Alexandria, 
who  had  authority  over  all  the  Jews  in  the 
country,  and  was  therefore  called  Ethnarch^ 
or,  as  he  is  styled  by  Philo,  yim^yjii.  For  this 
fact  we  have  the  authority  of  Stmbo,  quoted 
by  Josephus  xiv.  7,  2,  and  furthermore,  we  are 
informed  by  Philo  in  Flacc.  p.  975,  that  in  the 
reign  of  Augustus  this  Ethnarch  was  super- 
seded by  a  Jewish  Senate,  the  members  of 
which  were  also  called  Archons.  Concerning 
this  Ethnarch,  there  is  a  remarkable  passage 
in   Origen's  Ep,  ad  Jfricanuniy  against  which 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.        301 

Wetstein  raises  futile  objections.  There  was 
also  a  magistrate  called  Alabarches,  or  as  some, 
with  Wesseling,  think,  Araharches^  as  if  he 
were  named  from  the  Arabian  Nome,  and  were 
of  the  class  of  Nomarchs;  such  was  Alexander 
Lysimachus^  brother  of  Philo,  mentioned  by 
Josephus  xix.  4,  5,  whose  son,  Alexander  Ti- 
berius married  Berenice,  daughter  of  the  elder 
Agrippa.  Mangey,  in  his  preface  to  Philo, 
with  some  probability  conjectures  that  the 
Alexander  mentioned  in  Acts  iv.  8,  was  this 
Alexander  Lysimachus,  for  we  know  that  this 
person  was  of  the  Sacerdotal  order,  and  that 
he  was  popular  among  the  Jews,  on  account 
of  his  liberal  donations  to  the  temple.  The 
Ethnarch  of  Damascus,  however,  mentioned  in 
2  Cor.  xi.  32,  cannot  be  considered  as  a  Jew- 
ish magistrate,  for  this  reason,  that  he  is  called 
the  Ethnarch  of  Aretas,  that  is,  placed  over 
Damascus  and  the  adjacent  territory  by  Are- 
tas. 


y  [  This  Aretas,  for  there  were  many  of  the  name,  was 
king  of  Arabia  Petrsea,  and  of  the  territory  of  Damascus, 
and  father-in-law  of  Herod  Antipas.  See  Joseph.  Ant. 
Jud.  xviii.  5.  As  Aretas  had  been  deposed  through  the 
influence  of  Antipas  and  his  second  wife  Herodias  before 
the  time  of  St.  Paul's  being  at  Damascus,  it  is  strange  that 
Dr.  Ammon  should  not  here  observe  the  ignorance  of  St. 


302         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

Luke  on  historical  matters.  But  even  Semler  sees  no  dif- 
ficulty in  supposing  that  an  Ethnarch  appointed  by  Aretas, 
might  continue  in  officej  and  be  called  the  Ethnarch  of 
Aretas,  after  the  deposition  of  that  prince.] 

LXXVI.  In  Judea  itself,  every  town,  bow- 
ever  small,  had  its  arclion  or  magistrate,  who 
had  a  jurisdiction  in  minor  causes,  and  for 
whom  the  student  may  consult  the  writers 
upon  Jewish  antiquities.  This,  however,  is 
not  a  matter  of  much  importance  to  the  inter- 
preter ;  although  to  it  may  be  referred  the  pas- 
sage before  alluded  to,  Luke  xii.  58,  my  inter- 
pretation of  which  I  have  hinted  at  in  §  73, 
which  differs  from  that  given  by  Wesseling, 
p.  106.  The  Patriarchs  and  Primates  of  the 
Jews,  who  appear  to  have  sprung  from  these 
Ethnarchs,  were  of  a  later  age. 

LXXVII.  These  points  may  all  be  classed 
under  the  head  of  history.  With  respect  to 
rites  and  customs,  the  first  business  of  the  in- 
terpreter is  to  be  thoroughly  acquainted  with 
the  privileges  and  offices  of  the  Priests  and 
their  assistants  the  Levites,  their  division  into 
classes,  and  the  rotation  of  service  according 
to  this  division,  the  ra^iv  s^i^fxs^tuv,  as  it  is  called, 
Luke  i.  5,  8,  respecting  which,  besides  Juse- 
p/ius  vii.  14,  7,  Scanner's  Canon,  Isa(jog.  303, 
304,  may  be  consulted.     Their  principal  offices 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         303 

we  know  were  the  offering  of  prayers  and  sa- 
crifices, either  at  stated  times  of  the  year  and 
day,  or  upon  extraordinary  occasions;  and  these, 
together  with  all  other  religious  rites,  we  must 
learn  from  a  careful  study  of  the  Mosaic  law. 
Closely  connected  with  this  is  the  knowledge 
of  the  Sabbaths  and  festivals,  especially  of  the 
Passover,  on  account  of  its  connection  with 
our  Lord's  crucifixion.  On  this  head  I  know 
of  no  author  who  has  written  more  ably  than 
Bocliart  in  his  Hierozoicon,  p.  ii.  1.  ii.  c.  50, 
although  he  sometimes  pays  too  much  defe- 
rence to  Jewish  writers  in  matters  on  which 
they  philosophized  rather  than  wrote  from  their 
own  knowledge,  and  reasoned  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  the  voice  of  cotemporaneous  anti- 
quity. For  example,  with  CudwortJi,  he  con- 
siders the  sacrificing  of  the  Paschal  lamb,  even 
in  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  during  the  later  ages 
of  the  Jewish  church,  as  allowed  to  the  priests 
alone  ;  whereas  Philo,  a  priest  and  a  theolo- 
gian, who  had  often  been  present  at  the  Pass- 
over, and  could  not  possibly  be  ignorant  of  its 
details,  expressly  declares  in  his  Fit.  Mos.  iii. 
p.  686,  that  each  father  of  a  family  sacrificed 
his  own  lamb ;  and  by  the  admission  of  this 
fact  many  difiiculties  are  removed. 

LXXVIII.  The   whole   system    of  sacred 


304    USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

rites,  and  besides,  many  passages  of  the  New 
Testament,  cannot  be  understood  without  an 
acquaintance  with  the  temple,  which  was  gra- 
dually pulled  down  and  rebuilt  by  Herod  the 
Great.  And  in  reference  to  this,  some  have 
unreasonably  doubted  the  evidence  of  Jose- 
phus^  a  priest,  who  had  seen  the  temple ;  and 
doubted  it,  not  on  historical  grounds,  but  lest 
his  story  should  falsify  the  remarkable  predic- 
tion in  Haggai  ii.  10,  respecting  the  dignity 
of  the  second  temple ;  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  testimony  of  JosepJms  tallies  exactly 
with  that  of  Matt.  xxiv.  i,  and  of  John  ii.  20. 
That  this  fear  is  idle,  I  have  shown  in  my 
prolusion  concerning  the  second  temple,  on 
Haggai  ii.  10.  But,  in  attempting  to  acquire 
this  knowledge  of  the  temple,  we  must  not 
imitate  those  Avho  vainly  labour  to  give  a 
complete  plan  of  it,  as  built  by  Solomon  :  for 
though  Josephus  was  adequately  skilled  in 
the  arts  and  sciences,  and  consequently  able 
to  give  an  accurate  account ;  yet  the  nature  of 
the  subject  necessarily  prevented  him  from 
handing  down  to  us  a  clear  and  precise  idea. 
Even  professional  architects,  possessing  at 
the  same  time  a  clear  and  pure  style,  can- 
not by  description  give  such  an  idea  of  a 
buildingj   especially  if  it  be  a  complex  build- 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         305 

ing-  like  the  temple,  as  that  a  satisfactory 
model  or  picture  could  be  made  from  their 
description ;  as  we  see  in  the  case  of  the  villas 
described  by  Vitruvius  and  Pliny. 

LXXIX.  It  will  be  sufficient,  then,  in  the 
first  place,  to  understand  the  difference  be- 
tween vahg  and  /s^ov,  and  then  to  distinguish  the 
greater  divisions  of  each.  The  vaog  [or  cen- 
tral building  of  the  temple]  contained  the 
ciyiov  or  holy  place,  to  which  the  priests  alone 
were  admitted,  and  which  contained  some  of 
the  sacred  furniture,  Hehr.  ix.  2  ;  and  the  aovrov, 
or  holy  of  holies,  into  which  the  High  Priest 
alone  entered  o?ice  on  one  day  in  the  year,  as 
Philo  informs  us  in  his  Leg.  ad  Caium,  p.  1035. 
not  four  times,  as  the  Rabbins  generally  hold. 
The  iifov,  on  the  other  hand,  or  entire  body  of 
buildings  constituting  the  temple,  contained 
the  area  immediately  surrounding  the  vuhg,  in 
which  stood  the  altar  where  prayers  and  sa- 
crifices were  offered,  and  into  which  the  priests 
and  Levites  alone  were  allowed  to  enter ;  then 
other  areas,  with  noble  porticos,  mentioned  in 
sacred  history ;  partitions  separating  these  dif- 
ferent courts,  and  containing  various  chambers 
(Acts  ii.  2)  for  the  use  of  those  who  came  to 
learn  or  to  pray,  and  also  for  the  residence  of 

X 


306        USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

the  priests  and  Levites  during  their  term  of 
duty  ;  together  with  treasuries  and  other  build- 
ings. When  all  these  things  are  accurately 
known  and  distinguished,  it  will  be  enough 
when  any  of  them  is  mentioned  to  attribute  it 
to  its  proper  place  and  use,  and  to  beware  of 
confounding  them  with  modern  notions  of  si- 
milar objects,  as  is  too  often  done.  The  more 
minute  descriptions  of  the  temple,  given  by 
the  later  Rabbins,  are  either  fictitious  or  of 
little  use  to  the  interpreter.  Of  the  Captain 
of  the  Temple  we  have  spoken  already.^ 

*  [It  appears  a  strange  supposition  that  the  room  where 
the  disciples  were  assembled  at  Pentecost,  was  one  of  the 
division  chambers  of  the  temple,  and  apparently  unsupport- 
ed by  any  thing  in  the  context.  For  a  somewhat  fuller  ac- 
count of  the  temple,  see  Home's  Introd.  III.  p.  226,  seq.] 

LXXX.  Synagogues  and  ProseuchcB  (Actsxv. 
21,)  were,  from  the  most  ancient  times,  used 
for  such  religious  services  as  could  be  performed 
without  sacrifice,  that  is,  for  prayer,  and  the 
public  reading  and  exposition  of  Scripture. 
These  were  placed  without  the  walls  in  all 
places  iji habited  by  the  Jews,  not  in  Judea 
only,  but.  after  the  Jews  had  obtained  a  reli- 
gious toleration,  throughout  the  Roman  empire, 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.    307 

and  even  in  Rome  itself.  See  above,  §  ()6, 
In  Jerusalem  the  temple  superseded  the  ne- 
cessity of  having  Proseuchse  ;  nor  do  the  pas- 
sages John  xviii.  20,  or  Acts  vi.  4,  prove  their 
existence  there.  Sometimes  the  name  proseu- 
cha  is  given  to  an  open  space  of  ground,  es- 
pecially devoted  to  the  purpose  of  prayer. 
Acts  xiv.  13.  Upon  the  whole,  there  seems 
no  distinction  between  the  two  terms  syna- 
gogue and  proseucha,  unless  synagogues  be 
larger  proseuchse :  this  is  the  opinion  of  Vale- 
sius  on  Eusehiiis  ii.  6,  who  labours,  as  I 
think  ineffectually,  to  establish  a  distinction. 
It  is  clear,  from  Matt.  ix.  18,  (see  Grotius' 
note  on  the  text)  and  Mar^k  v,  that  every  sy- 
nagogue had  a  president,  an  as^yja-ovaychyog  or 
aoyj^v,  who  directed  the  order  of  worship,  and 
permitted  others  to  address  the  congregation. 
There  are  points  respecting  the  proceedings 
in  the  synagogues,  which  we  learn  from  scat- 
tered passages  in  the  New  Testament ;  as,  for 
example,  that  there  was  no  appointed  teacher, 
but  that  any  one  who  wished  w^as  allowed  to 
address  the  meeting,  Matt.  iv.  23,  Luke  iv.  15, 
where  the  archon  of  the  synagogue  is  also  men- 
tioned at  V.  20 ;  and  also,  that  lesser  punish- 
ments, as  scourging,  could  be  inflicted  on  cri- 


308         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

minals  in  the  synagogue,  Matt.  x.  17.  The 
notices  given  by  later  Jewish  writers  must  be 
carefully  distinguished  from  these,  as  proba- 
bly describing  the  habits  of  a  later  age ;  on 
which  supposition  they  must  be  unsuited  to 
the  illustration  of  Scripture,  though  they  have 
been  so  applied  by  Vitringa,  and  other  writers 
on  Jewish  antiquities. 

LXXXI.  The  student  ought  also  to  have 
a  clear  notion  of  the  Jewish  schools,  as  of  that 
of  Gamaliel,  mentioned  in  Acts  xxii.  3,  and 
of  other  teachers,  first  in  Jerusalem,  and  after- 
wards in  Babylon,  Tiberias,  and  other  places ; 
and  not  to  confound  them  with  the  synagogues 
or  proseuchse.^  For  the  Jewish  Rabbins,  like 
the  Athenian  philosophers,  taught,  that  is  to 
say,  expounded  sacred  subjects,  in  any  conve- 
nient public  place,  as  in  the  porticos  of  the 
temple,  Luke  ii.  46.  And  with  respect  to 
these  schools,  he  ought  to  be  careful  not  to  ima- 
gine them  similar  to  what  we  now  call  schools, 
nor  even  to  attribute  to  them  all  that  later 
Jewish  writers  have  said  respecting  schools  of 
a  more  recent  date.  The  only  matter  treated 
of  in  these  schools,  was  the  interpretation  of 
the  law  and  the  prophets ;  and  this,  after  the 
Greek  fashion,  was  called  philosophy  by  those 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         309 

Jews  who  spoke  Greek ;  nor  is  any  tiling  else 
to  be  understood  by  ^/Xoco^/a,  either  in  Jose- 
phus  or  in  the  New  Testament,  where  the  re- 
ference is  to  the  Jewish  nation,  or  to  religious 
opinions ;  for  that  age  had  not  learned  to  ap- 
ply the  word  theology  to  the  knowledge  of  re- 
vealed truth.  I  am  not  disposed  to  understand 
the  expression  of  St.  Paul^  that  he  sat  at  the 
feet  of  Gamaliel,  as  implying  that  the  teachers 
sat  on  an  elevated  seat.  It  appears  merely 
parallel  with  Luke  x.  39,  where  Mary  is  said 
to  have  sat  -^apa  'xdbag  'iridov,  to  hear  his  discourse; 
or  Luke  ii.  46,  where  Jesus  is  described  as 
sitting  among  the  doctors,  probably  upon  the 
ground,  and  therefore  -^^aoa  cro^ac,  at  their  feet. 
Nothing  more  than  this  is  to  be  understood  by 
the  words  of  St.  Paul.*^ 


*  [For  a  good  account  of  Proseuchae  and  Synagogues,  see 
Home's  Introd.  vol.  iii.  p.  233,  seq.  and  238,  seq.  distin- 
guishing, however,  according  to  the  advice  of  Ernesti,  the 
ancient  from  the  more  recent  authorities.  One  part  of  the 
argument  in  the  text  must  be  wrong.  Ernesti  maintains, 
that  Synagogues  and  Proseuchae  were  one  and  the  same, 
and  that  there  were  no  Proseuchae  at  Jerusalem  :  of  course 
it  must  follow  that  there  were  no  synagogues  in  that  city ; 
whereas  we  find  from  Acts  vi.  9,  that  there  were  many.] 

^  [The  Latin  is  "in  verbis  Pauli  nihil  tale  intelligendum." 
Tale  must  refer  to  the  preceding  sentence  which,  in  the 


310  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

original,  is  separated  only  by  a  colon.  The  translator  has 
no  doubt,  that  in  rendering,  as  if  it  had  been  "nihil  aliiid," 
he  has  given  the  meaning  of  the  author.  ] 


LXXXII.  Of  tliis  philosophy  or  theology 
there  were  two  sects,  distinguished  by  the 
different  interpretations  which  they  put  upon 
Scripture,  namely  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  ; 
for  as  to  the  third  sect,  the  Essenes,  which  Jo- 
seph us  adds  to  these,  they  differed  rather  in 
severity  of  living  than  in  religious  dogmas ; 
and  besides,  no  mention  is  made  of  them  in 
the  New  Testament.  Concerning  these  sects 
many  disputes  have  been  waged,  and  many 
books  written  by  learned  men ;  but  though 
the  knowledge  of  these  matters  be  not  foreign 
to  the  business  of  the  interpreter,  still  they 
throw  little  light  upon  interpretation  itself. 
On  this  head,  it  may  be  enough  to  read  what 
has  been  said  by  Josephus ;  and,  indeed,  the 
Gospels  themselves  define,  with  sufficient  clear- 
ness, the  distinofuishinor  doofmas  of  these  two 
sects.  In  order  to  understand  the  argument 
of  St.  Paid  respecting  the  weakness  of  the 
law  in  the  production  of  true  holiness,  it  may 
be  useful  to  know  what  Josephus  tells  us  of 
the  opinions  of  the  Pharisees   respecting   the 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  311 

liberty  of  the  will  and  the  power  of  the  law, 
namely,  that  a  man,  by  acquiring  a  knowledge 
of  the  law,  acquired  at  the  same  time  the 
power  of  obeying  it.  We  may  observe,  that 
under  the  appellations  of  Pharisees  and  Sad- 
ducees  are  intended  not  only  the  theologians, 
but  all  who  favoured  the  sentiments  and  adopt- 
ed the  manners  of  either  party ;  and,  in  this 
extended  sense,  we  must  understand  the  names 
in  Matt.  iii.  7.  We  must  also  be  careful  not 
to  imagine  that  these  teachers  were,  like  our 
own,  constituted  by  any  public  authority  or 
ordination  :  any  one  acted  as  a  teacher  of  reli- 
gion by  his  own  will  and  on  his  own  autho- 
rity. Thus  Saul,  though  brought  up  to  a 
trade,  intended  to  practise  as  a  theologian; 
and  he  practised  his  trade  of  tent-maker  after 
he  became  a  teacher  of  Christianity. 

LXXXIII.  We  have  now  spoken  of  the 
more  important  topics  with  which  an  interpreter 
ought  to  be  acquainted.  There  are  others,  such 
as  the  divisions  of  time,  weights,  measures,  and 
coins,  clothing,  punishments,  &c.  of  which 
though  they  be  of  minor  importance,  the  in- 
terpreter cannot  safely  be  ignorant.  He  must, 
therefore,  be  aware  of  the  distinction  between 
the  sacred  and  civil  year,  of  which  the  former 
began  in  March,  the  latter  in  September,  to- 


312  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

g-etber  with  their  division  into  months,  which 
were  evidently  lunar  months,  and  especially 
the  divisions  of  the  day  and  tlie  night.  It  ap- 
pears then  that  the  night  was  divided  into  four 
watches,  (Matt.  xiv.  25,  Luke  xii.  38,)  and 
this  division  was  not  borrowed  from  the  Ro- 
mans, but  prevailed  at  a  very  early  period, 
(Lament,  ii.  19,  Judges  vii.  19) ;  though  some 
are  of  opinion  that  in  early  times  there  were 
only  three  watches.  The  natural  day  (John 
xi.  9)  was  divided,  as  among  the  Romans,  into 
twelve  hours,  which,  of  course,  were  of  un- 
equal length,  according  to  the  season  of  the 
year.  How  these  were  measured  is  not  clearly 
explained  to  us.  The  third,  sixth,  and  ninth 
hours  were  devoted  to  the  public  services  of 
religion.  The  whole  of  the  day,  from  noon 
till  dark,  was  called  cvenincj  ;  but  this  was  di- 
vided into  two  unequal  portions,  also  called 
eoenwfjs  (Matt.  xxvi.  20.)  See  also  Scaliger 
de  Emend.  Temj).  568.  The  week^  or  period 
of  seven  days,  is  called  by  the  Evangelists 
^a/3/3ara  and  also  (TulStSocrov^  (Mark  xvi.  1,  Luke 
xviii.  12.)^ 

*=  [This  section  is  Imt  carelessly  expressed  by  Ernesti, 
and  the  subject  is  one  which,  if  mentioned  at  all,  requires 
great  accuracy.  The  reader  may  observe  that  the  texts  re- 
ferred to  do  not  prove  the  facts  for  which  they  are  produced. 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  313 

Thus  Lament,  ii.  19,  and  Judges  vii.  19,  do  not  specify  the 
number  of  watches  ;  but  as  the  latter  speaks  of  the  middle 
watch,  it  would  appear  that  the  number  was  then  three  ra- 
ther than  fotir.  All  the  four  watches  of  the  night  are 
mentioned  in  JMark  xlii.  35.  For  the  two  evenings^  see  Exod. 
xii.  6,  and  lievit.  xxiii.  4.  Mr.  Home  (Introd.  iii.  160,) 
has  made  sad  confusion  in  the  matter  of  days  and  hours. 
He  says,  the  natural  day  of  the  Romans  was  from  six  in  the 
morning  till  six  in  the  evening,  whereas  it  was  from  sun- 
rise to  sun-set :  their  civil  day  was,  like  ours,  from  midnight 
to  midnight.  Again,  he  says,  the  civil  day  of  the  Jews 
varied  according  to  the  season,  whereas  it  was  their  natural 
day  that  varied.  Their  civil  day  was  from  six  in  the  even- 
ing to  six  the  next  evening.  The  hours  of  the  natural,  or, 
as  he  calls  it,  the  civil  day,  could  not  be  marked  by  a  dial ; 
such  measurement  could  apply  only  to  the  equal  hours  of 
the  civil  day  properly  so  called,  which  calculation  of  hours 
commenced  at  six  in  the  morning,  the  preceding  twelve 
hours  being  divided  into  watches.] 

LXXXIV.  The  Jewish  measures  are  sel- 
dom mentioned  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
hatus  and  corns  are  mentioned  in  Luke  xvi.  6, 
7j  the  former  being  a  measure  of  liquids,  the 
latter  of  grain.  The  batus  or  bath,  is  nearly 
equivalent  to  the  Greek  metretes,  John  ii.  6, 
and  contained,  as  we  are  informed  by  Jose- 
phus  viii.  2,  seventy-two  sextarii  or  t,^(SToi,  that 
is,  six  congii^  or  three  quarters  of  an  amphora.*^ 
The  corns  or  homer  contains  ten  baths,  Ezek. 
xlv.  11,  and  the  choenix  (Rev.  vi.  6)  is  the 
sixth  part  of  the  modius  or  cubic  foot.     In 


314         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

connexion  with  such  questions  we  may  also 
examine  the  Sabbath-da?/^ s  journey^  which  the 
Rabbins  state  to  have  been  two  thousand  paces 
or  eight  furlongs,  while  the  Syriac  interpre- 
ter, Acts  i.  12,  makes  it  only  seven.  But  the 
whole  subject  of  weights  and  measures  may 
be  found  in  the  ordinary  books  of  Jewish  an- 
tiquities ;  only  the  reader  must  not  be  satisfied 
with  the  mere  names  of  mGclius.,  &c.,  but  as- 
certain, in  every  case,  the  number  of  cubical 
feet  or  inches.  For  it  is  not  enough  to  be  in- 
formed, as  we  are  by  Josephus,  what  Greek  or 
Latin  measures  correspond  to  the  Hebrew 
ones,  unless  we  can  specify  their  absolute  va- 
lue. On  these  subjects  no  author  has  laboured 
with  more  diligence  than  Eisenschmidt  in  his 
book  de  Pondei^ibus  et  Mensuris ;  with  whom 
we  may  place  Lam-ys  Apparat.  Bibl.  i.  15,  16. 
The  coins^  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament, 
are  almost  all  Roman  or  Greek ;  for  the  Jews 
had  begun  to  use  Greek  coins  from  the  time 
of  their  becoming  part  of  the  Syrian  kingdom, 
and  Roman  coins  were  introduced  by  the  Ro- 
mans when  they  assumed  the  sovereignty  of 
that  part  of  Asia.  The  Jewish  sliekel  is  render- 
ed in  Matt.  xxvi.  15,  doyvPia.  This  Josephus, 
A.  J.  iii.  8,  3,  compares  with  the  tetradrachm 
of  the  Greeks  ;  and  this  calculation  is  confirm- 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  315 

ed  by  Gronovius  in  his  treatise  de  Sestertio,  p. 
168,  and  by  Reland  in  his  Diss,  de  Nuin. 
Satnar.,  p.  188.  Deyling  also  in  his  Ohs.  Sac, 
iii,  n.  *25j  }  9,  reconciles  this  translation  with 
that  of  the  LXX.,  who  render  the  shekel  by 
blbsayjMov,  for  the  Alexandrine  didrachmon  is 
equivalent  to  the  Attic  tetradrachmon.  The 
Attic  or  ordinary  didrachmon  is  therefore  half 
of  the  shekel  or  stater ;  and  in  Matt.  xvii.  24, 
is  the  sum  which  was  paid  by  every  one  yearly 
into  the  temple  treasury.  The  name  of  shekel, 
however,  belonged  originally  to  a  weight 
rather  than  a  coin,  see  Eisenscmidt,  s.  i.  c.  4, 
and  was  equivalent  to  the  Roman  semiuncia. 
Sixty  shekels  made  a  mma,  and  three  thousand 
a  talent.  It  is  unnecessary  to  speak  of  other 
Greek  and  Roman  coins,  whose  values  are 
known  to  every  school-boy.  Of  the  use  of 
these  coins,  however,  it  may  not  be  useless  to 
say  something;  and,  since  this  subject  is  con- 
nected with  the  taxes  and  tributes,  we  shall 
first  briefly  treat  of  them. 


**  [The  translator,  without  having  any  but  the  ordinary 
authorities,  cannot  help  suspecting  an  error  here.  Accord- 
ing to  Arbuthnoty  the  Metretes  was  about  ten  English  gal- 
lons, and  the  Amphora  only  seven  gallons.  The  error  is 
here  ;  seventy-two  l^itrroi  make,  not  six,  but  twelve  congii ; 
and  twelve  congii  equal  an  Amphora  and  a  half,  which  is 


316  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

nearly  the  same  capacity  as  the  Metretes.  See  Arhuthnot 
on  Ancient  Money  and  Measures,  Lugd.  Bat.  1764.  Tab.  14 
and  15,  who  makes  the  Metretes  and  the  Bath  each  10.335, 
gallons.] 

LXXXV.  The  Romans  then,  from  the  very 
commencement  of  their  power  over  Palestine, 
rendered  it  tributary.  And  this  tribute  was 
first  imposed  by  Pompey,  who,  having  ad- 
judged the  quarrel  between  Hyrcanus  and 
Aristobulus,  in  favour  of  the  former,  during 
the  consulship  of  Cicero,  imposed  a  tribute, 
not  merely  w4th  the  assent,  but  also  with  the 
concurrence  of  Hyrcanus.  Cicero  perhaps  re- 
fers to  this  in  his  Fiacc.  28.  Certainly  such 
is  the  sense  put  on  the  passage  by  Scaliger  in 
his  Animadv.  adEusehii.  Chron.  p.  153.  ^^^hen 
Judea  was  reduced  to  a  province,  the  tribute 
was  fixed  by  P.  Stdpicius  Quirinns,  according 
to  a  census  held  by  him,  (see  Luke  ii.  2,  Acts 
V.  37,  and  also  §  70  of  this  chapter,)  while 
Coponius  was  Procurator  of  Judea;  and  this, 
no  doubt,  is  referred  to  in  Matt.  xxii.  17. 
The  nature  of  this  census,  and  of  the  tribute 
founded  on  it,  may  be  learned  from  the  ora- 
tions of  Cicero  against  Verres,  from  Tacit us^ 
who  frequently  mentions  the  provincial  census, 
as  in  the  Annal.  i.  31,  on  which  it  will  be  well 
to  consult  Lipsius  Exc,  K.,  and  other  Latin 


USE  OF  GENERAL  IN  FORM  ATI  OX.  317 

authors.  The  census  must  be  distinguished 
from  the  vectigal,  of  which  only  one  species, 
the  port-duties,  is  mentioned  in  Scripture ; 
these  were  transmitted  to  Rome.  The  dis- 
tinction between  the  two  taxes,  as  appears 
from  the  orations  against  Verres,  was  this ; 
the  census  was  levied  by  the  magistrates  of  each 
city,  and  the  produce  paid  under  the  name  of 
tribute  or  <po^og\  but  the  vectigalia  or  taxes 
(ra  rzkn),  were  levied  by  revenue  farmers, 
through  their  servants,  the  head  of  whom 
was  called  promagistro,  Verr.  ii.  70.  These 
servants  are  called  in  the  New  Testament, 
Tik'hai,  and  Zacchseus,  a  promagistro,  ao-^tn- 
Xdjvrig.  The  revenue  farmers,  it  is  well  known, 
were  Roman  knights,  but  in  the  actual  col- 
lection they  generally  employed  natives  of  the 
province.^ 

^  [The  subject  of  this  §  may  perhaps  be  rendered  clearer 
by  a  brief  definition  of  the  principal  terms.  The  Latin 
Census  is  an  enrolment  of  the  names  and  fortunes  of  the 
citizens,  and  this  is  the  aTo'y^a(pyi  of  Luke  ii.  1,  2.  But 
KTJvffos  is  used  by  the  sacred  writers  to  express,  not  this 
enrolment,  but  the  tax  founded  upon  it,  the  capitation  tax 
or  iTiKKpcikatov  as  Hesychius  defines  it.  (p'0^05  is  strictly 
equivalent  to  this,  compare  Matt.  xxii.  17,  with  the  parallel 
text  Luke  xx.  22.  So  also  Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  L.  vii.  c.  v.  § 
3,  SciffiXius  (p'o^ovi  vcTi^  Ti  rns  X^i'"''-)  '"'''  ''"^»  tfiaffT'/ii  x.i<pa,Xns 
va,^  auTuiv  idix^ro.     TiAoj  again  is  a  duty  on  exports  or  im- 


oi8         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

ports.  In  Matt.  xvii.  25,  it  is  distinguished  from  Kvvtros, 
and  in  Rom.  xiii.  7,  from  (po^os.  It  is  remarkable,  that  the 
inherent  difference  between  these  two  taxes,  the  direct  and 
indirect,  causes  in  our  own  time  a  difference  in  the  persons 
collecting,  similar  to  that  noticed  by  Ernesti.] 

LXXXVI.  In  the  payment  of  these  tri- 
butes and  taxes,  either  Greek  or  Roman  money 
was  taken,  as  appears  from  the  testimony  of 
the  ancients.  For  certainly,  in  the  acts  im- 
posing or  regulating  taxes,  at  least  in  those 
relating  to  the  tc^s^co;,  the  Roman  denarius  was 
the  standard,  which  is  thence  called  in  Matt, 
xxii.  17,  \d;jAqM  y.rivc^b-o.  Greek  money  was  re- 
ceived instead  of  Roman,  the  drachma  for  the 
denarius  ;  but  all  such  money  was  required  to 
be  changed  in  the  province  by  traders  or  pub- 
licans, since  nothing  but  Roman  money  was 
received  in  the  Roman  treasury. 

LXXXVII.  The  money  required  by  the 
law  to  be  paid  by  every  Jew  into  the  temple 
treasury,  was  paid  in  Jewish  money.  That 
the  payers  might  readily  procure  this  money 
in  exchange  for  Roman  and  Greek  coins, 
changers  of  money  had  their  tables  in  the 
temple.  These  were  the  xoX?.y/3;(rra/  and  xs^/xa- 
r/CT-cc/,  mentioned  in  Matt.  xxi.  1*2,  and  John 
ii.  16,  whose  tables  Jesus  overthrew.  In  the 
class  of  sacred  coins  we  must  therefore  place 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         319 

the  d/doa^fj^ov  or  half-shekel,  wliich  was  paid  by 
every  Jew,  even  by  those  who  lived  out  of 
Palestine,  Matt.  xvii.  24.  This  coin  is  men- 
tioned even  by  profane  writers,  as  by  Cicero 
in  Flacc.  28,  under  the  name  of  Auri  Judaici, 
and  in  the  Codex  Theod.  by  that  of  auri  coro- 
narii.  See  Gothofredus  ad  Cod.  Theod.  \.  xvi. 
Tit.  de  Judceis,  \.  14,  17,  &c. 

LXXXVllI.  There  is  little  in  the  domestic 
life  of  the  Jews  that  requires  elucidation.  In 
dress  the  //xar/ov  answers  to  the  pallium  of  the 
Greeks ;  and  the  %/rik;!/  and  (jro7,ri  to  the  shorter 
or  longer  timic  of  the  Romans  :  men  of  severe 
habits,  as  the  early  prophets  whom  the  Baptist^- 
wore  this  of  haircloth,  Matt.  iil.  4.  See  also 
Josephus  A.  J.  xii.  8,  and  it  was  confined  round 
the  body  with  a  girdle.  Acts  xii.  8.  The  tunic 
alla(pog  or  v^avrog  di'  oXov  John  xix.  23,  was  not 
composed  of  two  segments  of  cloth,  united  at 
the  sides  or  shoulders  by  a  seam  or  by  clasps, 
but  was  one  continuous  w^eb  throughout.  Of 
this  nature  Josephus  A.  J.  iii.  7,  describes  the 
stole  of  the  High-Priest  to  have  been ;  which 
in  his  B.  J.  v.  5,  7,  he  also  calls  ffr^oyyvXov 
'ivdv/j^a.  The  method  of  making  such  a  tunic 
is  described  by  Theophylact  on  John  xix.  23, 
and  he  observes  from  ChrysostoirC s  Horn.  84,  in 
Johaiin.  that  it  was  peculiar  to  Palestine.     To 


320  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

tliese  authorities  add  Ruhenius  de  Lato  clavo  I. 
9,  who  very  properly  refutes  the  opinion  of 
Salmasius  ad  Script.  Hist.  Aug.  II.  p.  679,  that 
it  meant  a  garment  sewed  together,  in  con- 
tradistinction to  one  clasped,  an  opinion  which 
many  have  rashly  followed.  Delicate  and  ef- 
feminate persons  used  several  tunics,  as  Augus- 
tus ap.  Sueton.  82,  whence  Jesus  commands  his 
disciples  to  be  content  with  one.  Matt.  x.  10. 
The  Koaff-TTidcf,  mentioned  Matt,  xxiii.  5,  are  the 
he77i  of  the  pallium,  Mark  ix.  20,  called  by  the 
Greeks  '^rrsovyia^  for  we  cannot  suppose  that  Jesus 
had  a  border  or  fringe  sewed  on.  The  Asjxa  //Maria, 
Matt.  xvii.  2,  are  the  Candida  vestes  of  the  Latins, 
artificially  whitened  by  the  fuller,  Mark  ix.  3,^ 
which,  from  their  splendour,  were  also  called 
l^adTod'TtTovra,  and  SO  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Catech. 
ii.  calls  the  garments  of  candidates  for  baptism 
a<ST^d^T0'o6av.  '  Tvro5)7aara  must  be  understood  to 
mean  sometimes  sandals,  that  is,  wooden  soles 
attached  to  the  ankle  by  leather  thongs,  Mark 
i.  7,  or  slioes  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word, 
the  use  of  which  is  forbidden  by  Jesus,  Matt. 
X.  10.  For  he  allowed  them  to  wear  sandals, 
Mark  vi.  9,  and  they  were  used  by  Peter, 
Acts.  xii.  8.  Consult  Salmasius  ad  Tertull.  de 
Pallia,  p.  388.8 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INEORMATION.  3*21 

^  [Should  the  reference  to  texts  be  sometimes  erroneous, 
the  reader  has  only  to  compare  a  few  pages  of  the  original, 
and  he  will  find  that  the  translator  has  at  least  improved 
upon  the  original  in  this  matter.] 

8  Or  rather  Braun  de  Vestitu  sacsrdotum  Kebraeorum, 
Amst.  1701. 


LXXXIX.  The  meals  of  the  Jews  differed 
in  no  respect,  except  in  prayer,  from  those  of 
the  Greeks.     For   in   both   cases  the  supper 
took  place  about  the  eleventh  hour,  and  the 
guests   reclined   upon   couches,    even  at   the 
Paschal  supper,  (Mark  xiv.  15 — 18,)  contrary 
to  the  original  practice,  and  to  the  opinion  of 
Bochart  in  his  Hierozoicon^  p.  601,  see  Scaliger^s 
Emend.  Temp.  p.  570.     The  food  was  taken 
by  the  hand,  without  the  aid  of  knife  or  fork ; 
whence  the  practice  of  washing  before  and  after 
meals,   Mark  vii.  5.     The  bread  was  formed 
into  cakes,  broad,  thin,  and  easily  broken.    The 
wine  was  always  used  in  a  diluted  state,  even 
after  meals ;  and  thus  olvog  is  always  to  be  un- 
derstood of  wine  and  water.     The  more  opu- 
lent classes  used  unguents  at  their  banquets : 
thus   we   read   that  Jesus   was   honoured   by 
having  the  contents  of  an  uXd(3agr^ov  or  box  of 
ointment  poured  on  his  head.  Matt.  xxvi.  7 ; 
the  breaking  of  which,  Mark  xiv.  3,  appears 
to  mean  the  breaking  off  the  upper  part  of  the 

Y 


322  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

neck,  the  orifice  being  sealed  in  token  of  its 
purity,  which  we  learn  from  PUn?/  was  the  case 
with  imported  perfumes.  Strainers  (v^f^oi) 
were  also  used,  to  prevent  any  foreign  matter 
passing  from  the  wine-vessel  or  crater  into  the 
drinking  cup.  See  Chishid  ad  Inscrip.  Sig.  p. 
.37.  In  banquets  of  peculiar  dignity  they  had 
masters  of  thefeast^  John  ii.  9  :  not,  however, 
in  the  same  sense  as  the  Greeks,  but  merely  to 
attend  to  the  comfort  of  the  guests.  All  the  ban- 
quets mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  took 
place  on  the  Sabbath,  for  the  other  days  of  the 
week  were  devoted  to  labour.*^  The  richer 
classes  had  particular  eating  rooms  correspond- 
ing to  the  triclinia  of  the  Romans,  as  appears 
from  Mark  xiv.  15,  of  which  hereafter. 

^  [See  Luke  xiv.  1,  seq.  But  this  seems  too  general  a 
conclusion.  The  more  wealthy  Jews  could  not  be  limited 
by  necessity  to  the  Sabbath  :  and  it  is  difficult  to  reconcile 
the  practice  of  Sabbath  banquets  with  the  command  in 
Exod.  XXXV.  3.] 

XC.  Attention  ought  to  be  paid  to  the  style 
of  architecture  prevalent  among  the  Jews. 
Every  one  knows  that  their  roofs  were  nearly  flat, 
as  was  also  the  case  among  the  Greeks.  In  the 
houses  of  the  higher  classes,  mention  is  made 
of  the  rrDoavXjov  and  avXn ;  whether  this  double 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.        323 

Lall,  (Mark  xiv.  66,  68,  compared  with  John 
xviii.  15,  16,)  answers  to  the  vestibidum  and 
atrium  of  the  Romans,  or  whether  the  former 
was  an  exterior,  and  the  latter  an  interior 
hall,  so  as  to  make  the  ir^oahXm  correspond 
with  the  Greek  avXri,  is  uncertain.  In  the 
'TTPoavXiov  was  the  poj'ch  in  which  feasts  were 
held,  and  in  which,  as  appears  from  Matt, 
xxvi.  69,  compared  with  Luke  xxii.  61,  Christ 
was  examined  by  Caiaphas.  'Trs^uJov,  means  a 
room  in  the  higher  part  of  the  house,  employed 
for  various  purposes;  as  for  banquets,  Mark 
xiv.  15,  for  avw/a/oi/  the  word  there  used  is,  ac- 
cording to  Hesychius,  synonymous  with  Ots^Jov; 
ioT  prayers  and  such  purposes  Act  i.  13,  xx.  7, 
8,  and  for  laying  out  the  corpses  of  the  dead. 
Acts  ix.  37.*  The  private  buildings  called  in 
the  Gospels  ^ru^/o/,  [Matt.  xxi.  33,  Luke  xiv. 
28,)  must  be  understood  to  mean  buildings 
raised  to  a  considerable  height  in  gardens,  or 
villas  for  the  sake  of  a  more  extensive  view, 
and  not  what  we  call  towers}- 


^  [The  translator  doubts,  as  Ernesti  did  respecting  the 
temple,  whether  it  be  possible  to  have  a  clear  notion  of  the 
arrangement  of  a  Jewish  house.  Little  can  be  learned 
from  this  §,  and  Hornets,  chap.  i.  part  iv.  (vol.  iii.  p.  377-) 
treats  rather  of  the  peculiarities  in  modern  Asiatic  houses, 
which  appear  to  illustrate  the  New  Testament,  than  of  his- 


324         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

torical  documents  relative  to  houses  as  they  were  in  the 
time  of  our  Saviour.  It  seems  from  the  various  ways  in 
in  which  the  synonyme  of  iin^Mov  is  written,  ocvayaiov,  avu. 
yiovy  cotuyaiov  a.vuyiuv,  that  it  was  a  word  unknown  to  the 
Greek  copyists  of  the  N.  T.] 

^  See  Duker  on  Livy  xxxiii.  48.  and  Faher's  Archaeolo- 
gia  Hebraeorum,  of  which  only  the  first  vol.  has  appeared. 


XCI.  We  have  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
section  one  of  the  ceremonies  used  towards 
the  dead.  Besides  this,  the  corpse  was  en- 
tirely wrapped  in  bandages,  and  the  face  was 
covered  with  a  napkin,  (John  xi.  44,  xx.  5,) 
which  practice  is  well  illustrated  by  Cuper, 
Obs.  ii.  9,  and  it  was  also  anointed  as  a  mark 
of  honour;  {Mark  xvi.  1,  Luke  xxiv.  1,  John 
xix.  39,)  and  in  this  consisted  partly  the  svtu- 
(pia(rfxhg  or  entombment.  Musicians  were  hired 
at  the  funeral,  (Matt.  ix.  23;)  the  body  was 
carried  to  the  grave  upon  a  bier  ;  and  the  grave 
or  sepulchre,  which  was  a  hollow  rock,  was 
sometimes  ornamented  on  the  outside  with 
architectural  additions.  The  interior  had  small 
chambers  in  its  sides,  each  of  a  proper  size  to 
hold  a  human  corpse  :  in  one  of  these  the 
corpse  was  deposited,  and  to  facilitate  this  was 
one  use  of  the  linen  bandages.  The  sepulchre 
in  which  our  Saviour  was  laid  appears,  how- 
ever, to  have  been  differently  arranged,  John 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         325 

XX.  12.      See  Stephanus  Monachus,  Var.  Sac. 
T.  ii.  p.  516,  seq.i 

^  [See  Hornets  Introd.  iii.  p.  494,  Jahn's  Archaeologia, 
p.  289,  seq.] 

XCIl.  1  lie  Jewish  punishments  mentioned 
in  the  New  Testament  are,  1.  Stoning,  Acts 
vii.  58,  seq.,  from  which  text,  compared  with 
Deut.  xvii.  7,  the  nature  of  the  punishment  is 
sufficiently  clear.  2,  Beheading,  Acts  xii.  2, 
3.  That  the  punishment  of  crucifixion,  as  it  was 
undergone  by  Jesus,  was  not  a  Jewish  but  a 
Roman  punishment,  has  been  proved  very  sa- 
tisfactorily by  Casauhon  in  his  Exerc,  Baron. 
xvi.  77,  in  opposition  to  the  opinion  of  Lipsius 
and  others  ;  nor  do  the  Jewish  writers  mention 
crucifixion  among  their  capital  punishments. 
For  the  directions  given  by  Moses  respecting 
the  suspension  of  criminals,  must  be  understood 
of  the  public  exposure  on  a  gibbet  of  the  bo- 
dies of  criminals  previously  executed  :™  nor 
ought  the  words  <irav^og,  arav^ouv,  and  the  like, 
which  are  usually  applied  to  the  cross,  to  oc- 
casion any  doubt  on  this  subject.  It  is  a  more 
difficult  question  to  decide  whether  the  Jewish 
courts  had  the  power  of  capital  punishment, 
when  the  country  was  under  procurators.  The 
general  condition  of  the  provinces  is  against 


3*26      USE  or  general  information. 

the  supposition :  if,  therefore,  the  Jewish  courts 
possessed  this  power,  it  must  have  been  by  a 
special  grant  authorizing  them  to  condemn  and 
execute  offenders  against  their  religious  law ; 
and  this  does  not  appear  improbable,  when  we 
consider  the  extensive  privileges  granted  to 
the  Jews  by  the  Caesars.  The  text,  John  xviii. 
31,  seems,  however,  to  settle  the  question, 
in  which  the  Jews  expressly  declare  that  they 
did  not  possess  the  power  of  putting  any  one 
to  death.  Nor  is  the  supposition  that  they 
had  this  power,  materially  supported  by  Acts 
vii.  57.  For  it  is  not  certain  that  the  stoning 
of  Stephen  took  place  before  the  accession  of 
Agrippa  to  the  government  of  Judea." 


"*  See  J.  B.  Michaelis  on  the  Capital  Punishments  of  the 
Jews.  Halle  1749,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis^  Commentaries  on 
the  Law  of  Moses,  t.  v.  §  231.  The  reader  may  also  refer 
to  §  72  of  this  chapter. 

"  [The  difficulty  is  still  more  striking  in  Acts  ix.  2,  where 
the  High  Priest  at  Jerusalem  is  represented  as  possessing 
supreme  power  over  the  Jews  at  Damascus.  In  all  proha- 
bility,  this  must  have  occurred  in  the  reign  of  Agrippa,  and 
the  Jews  throughout  Asia  must  have  been  obliged  to  refer 
their  causes  to  the  Sanhedrim  at  Jerusalem.  See  Hem- 
richs''  chronological  table  in  Proleg.  to  Acts.  In  his  notes, 
however,  Heinrichs  forgets  his  own  dates,  and  speaks  of 
St.  Paul  as  acting  without  the  authority  of  the  Procurator ; 
whei-eas  in  A.  D.  C7,  the  date  which  he  affixes  to  the  con- 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         327 

version  of  St.  Paul,  Jiidea  was  no  longer  a  Roman  province, 
and,  of  course,  there  was  no  Procurator.] 


XCIII.  As  to  other  punishments,  we  meet 
with  fustigation,  or  beating  with  batons,  and 
its  legal  limits  in  2  Cor.  xi.  24,  with  scourging 
in  Matt.  x.  17,  and  finally  with  excommunica- 
tion in  John  ix.  22,  concerning  which  there 
are  various  disputes.  And  with  respect  to  this 
I  suspect  that,  as  in  many  other  points  of  Jew- 
ish Antiquities,  more  recent  authorities  have 
been  mingled  with  those  which  are  ancient 
and  really  to  the  purpose  ;  and  that  in  reality 
there  was  but  one  excommunication,  which 
was  referred  to  in  the  passage  just  quoted ; 
and  that  it  consisted  in  an  exclusion  from  com- 
munity in  sacred  rites,  which  exclusion,  out  of 
Jerusalem,  would  be  simply  an  exclusion  from 
the  synagogue.  At  any  rate,  the  texts  1  Cor. 
V.  6,  and  xvi.  22,  are  erroneously  applied  to 
excommunication,  as  Basnage  satisfactorily 
proves  in  his  Disp.  Antiq.  S,  Disp.  1.  T.  11. 
AnnaL  I  cannot,  however,  agree  with  him  in 
supposing,  with  Selden,  that  excommunication 
was  merely  exclusion  from  private  and  civil 
society,  for  this  would  not  be  exclusion  from 
the  sgnagogue,  d'Troff-jvdyojyov  Jvai.  Hitherto  we 
liave  spoken  of  Jewish  customs,  and  of  other 


328         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

circumstances  arising  from  the  influence  of 
foreign  dominion  upon  the  Jews.  Let  us  now 
turn  our  attention  to  certain  circumstances 
directly  Greek  or  Roman,  which  are  mentioned 
in  Scripture. 

XCIV.  In  Roman  history,  then,  the  student 
ought  to  study  carefully  the  history  of  the 
Caesars  from  Augustus  to  Nero,  this  being  the 
period  of  our  Saviour's  ministry,  of  the  labours 
of  the  Apostles,  and  of  the  institution  of  the 
Christian  church.  There  are  many  texts  in  the 
New  Testament  which  cannot  be  understood 
without  this  knowledge,  or  which,  at  any  rate, 
receive  much  light  from  it.  This  portion  of 
history  may  best  be  learned  from  Tacitus, 
Suetonius,  Dio  Cassius,  and  especially  from 
Josephus  ;  and  many  collections  of  illustrative 
observations  have  been  made  from  these  his- 
torians by  modern  scholars,  of  whom  Casauhon 
and  Pagi,  in  their  works  before  quoted,  and 
Tillemont  in  his  History  of  the  Emperors,  are  to 
be  commended  as  the  most  accurate ;  and  the 
student  will  do  well  to  peruse,  or  at  any  rate, 
when  he  is  in  a  difficulty,  to  consult  their 
commentaries.**  And  in  this  matter  it  is  most 
important  to  determine  the  harmony  of  dates 
between  the  acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the  reigns 
of  the  emperors.     But  this  properly  belongs 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  329 

to  Chronology,  of  which  we  have  spoken  be- 
fore. 

•  [The  titles  of  these  works  are  in  full,  Is.  Casauboni, 
De  Rebus  Sacris  Ecclesiasticis  Exercitationes  xvi.  ad  Card. 
Baronii  prolegomena  in  Annales,  Geneva,  1655.  Critica 
Histrico-chronologica  in  Universos  Ann.  Eccl.  Baronii, 
Auctore  Antonio  Pagi,  published  at  Antwerp  (Geneva)  in 
1705,  and  republished  by  Francis  Pagi  in  1724. 

XCV.  The  student  ought  to  be  especially- 
careful  to  have  a  clear  idea  of  the  government 
of  the  Roman  empire,  as  instituted  by  Agus- 
tus ;  how  and  by  what  officers  the  business  of 
the  provinces  was  conducted,  and  what  change 
was  made  upon  the  institutions  which  prevail- 
ed while  the  republic  was  free.  Scholars  ge- 
nerally take  their  notions  of  these  matters  from 
the  historians  whose  works  are  ordinarily  read 
in  schools,  for  the  purpose  of  learning  the 
Latin  language;  and  these  historians  generally 
describe  the  state  of  things  previous  to  Agus- 
tus.  Thus  errors  often  arise,  and  the  best 
scholars  may  sometimes  be  found  at  a  loss.  It 
must  also  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  arrange- 
ments of  Augustus  were  occasionally  altered 
by  Tiberius  and  his  successors.  Thus,  Achaia 
and  Macedonia,  which  were  first  proconsular 
provinces,  (see  §  xlvii.)  were  changed  by  Ti- 


330  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

berius  into  Csesarean,  and  governed  by  Le- 
gates; and  again  restored  to  the  senate  by 
Claudius.  Hence  in  Acts  xviii.  12,  Gallio 
is  properly  called  proconsul  of  Acliaia,  but  in 
a  different  sense  from  that  in  which  P.  Sulpi- 
cius  is  so  called  by  Cicero ;  as  also  the  magis- 
trates of  Asia  in  Acts  xix.  38,p  where  no  one 
ought  to  find  fault  with  the  number.  A  know- 
ledge of  these  points  will  enable  every  one  to 
assign  the  right  sense  to  the  words  jj/s/xo/i/  and 
riyifjjoviUiv  whenever  they  occur. 

[P  The  reference  here  is  to  the  word  av&u-varot ;  and  the 
question  is,  why  is  it  in  the  plural  ?  The  commentators  do 
not  answer  this  very  decidedly,  some  thinking  that  av^uTa- 
roi  is  used  for  magistrates  generally ;  others  that  the  plural 
is  used  for  the  singular,  the  allusion  being  to  the  Proconsul, 
whose  residence  was  at  Ephesus.  ] 

XCVI.  The  extent  of  the  judicial  power  in 
the  provincial  magistrates,  and  the  manner  in 
which  it  was  exercised,  may  be  learned  from 
the  sources  pointed  out  in  §  71.  There  are 
also  many  passages  in  later  historians,  in  Taci- 
tus especially,  which  throw  light  upon  the  pro- 
vincial administration  of  justice,  in  those  points 
which  the  practice  under  the  emperors  differed 
from  the  practice  under  the  free  republic ;  for 
this  purpose,   the  tenth  book  of  Pliny's  epis- 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         331 

ties  may  also  be  studied  with  advantage.  Of 
the  points  which  may  thus  be  elucidated,  is 
the  practice  of  appealing  to  Csesar,  and  also 
the  nature  of  the  cases  reserved  for  his  deci- 
sion, see  Acts  xxv.  11,  xxviii.  19.^ 


1  [In  the  original  it  is  xxviii.  16,  which  has  no  reference 
to  either  point.  But  the  translator  can  find  no  passage  in 
the  Acts  relating  to  the  nature  of  the  cases  reserved  for 
Caesar's  judgment.  The  passage  of  Pliny  referred  to  is  the 
37th  Epistle  of  Book  10,  where  it  appears,  that  by  the 
Sempronian  law  no  Roman  citizen  could  be  capitally  con- 
victed but  by  the  suffrage  of  the  people  ;  which  seems  to 
have  been  so  far  in  force  even  under  the  emperors,  as  to 
make  it  necessary  to  send  the  criminal  to  Rome] 


XCVII.  And  since  there  are  some  allusions 
in  the  New  Testament  to  the  military  affairs 
of  the  Romans,  both  in  the  city  and  in  the 
provinces,  these  also  ought  to  be  known  by 
the  interpreter  of  Scripture.  In  the  city  then 
some  troops  were  required  as  a  guard  for  the 
emperor's  person ;  to  these  Augustus  gave  the 
name  of  Praetorian  cohorts ;  the  practice  having 
been  introduced  by  the  triumvirs  of  giving 
several  cohorts  to  each,  whereas  the  original 
system  was  for  each  general  to  have  only  one. 
These  Praetorian  cohorts  were  commanded  by 
two  prefects,  and  they  were  used  both  as  the 


332         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

guards  of  the  emperor's  person  and  family, 
and  also  as  the  ordinary  executioners  of  his 
commands.  Tiberius  appointed  for  them  a 
camp  without  the  city,  which,  witli  its  inhabi- 
tants, is  called,  Phil.  i.  13,  prcetorium ;  and 
hence,  in  Acts  xxviii.  16,  the  praetorian  pre- 
fect is  called  (Srparo'-iod^yj,g.  All  military  ser- 
vice within  the  city  was  performed  by  the  sol- 
diers of  these  cohorts.  By  the  prefect  men- 
tioned in  Acts,  some  learned  men  have  sup- 
posed that  Burrhus  is  intended,  the  probabi- 
lity of  which  opinion  depends  of  course  upon 
the  date  of  St.  Paul's  arrival  at  Rome.  For 
their  argument,  that  the  noun  is  in  the  singu- 
lar number,  and  that,  therefore,  Burrhus  must 
be  intended,  who  had  no  colleague  in  the  pre- 
fecture, whereas,  both  his  predecessors  and 
successors  had  colleagues,  it  is  of  no  weight 
whatever.  For  Trajan  ap.  Pliny  Ep.  x.  QQ, 
says  of  some  one,  "  let  him  be  delivered  bound 
to  the  Praetorian  Prefect,"  in  the  singular ; 
and  in  Suetonius,  Claudius,  c.  ix.  requests  of 
the  Senate  that  he  may  be  permitted  to  intro- 
duce "  Prcefectum  PrcBtorium^^  the  prefect 
into  their  assembly ;  and  yet  no  one  hence 
infers,  that  in  the  reigns  of  Trajan  and  Clau- 
dius there  was  but  one  Praetorian  Prefect. 
XCVIII.  In  the  provinces,   legions  or  co- 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         333 

borts  were  quartered  for  the  preservation  of 
the  peace,  externally  and  internally,  and  for 
the  execution  of  such  orders  of  the  governor 
as  required  their  assistance.  The  greater 
provinces  had  legions  ;  the  less,  such  as  Judea, 
Cyrenaica,  &c.  which  were  governed  by  pro- 
curators, had  only  cohorts.  Hence,  in  Acts, 
ff-rei^ai  only  are  mentioned,  the  Italian,  chap. 
X.  and  the  Augustan  chap,  xxvii.  which  some 
erroneously  understand  to  mean  legions.  That 
this  supposition  is  erroneous  we  conclude, 
both  from  the  analogy  of  provincial  insti- 
tutions, and  also  from  this,  that  the  Italian 
legion  was  embodied  by  Nero  after  the  date 
of  chap.  X,  and  that  there  was  no  Augustan 
legion  in  those  regions.  Hence  we  read  in 
the  New  Testament  of  no  military  officer 
higher  than  a  tribune.  All  this,  however,  must 
be  understood  of  the  peace  establishment.  In 
time  of  war,  or  when  war  was  expected,  le- 
gions were  introduced ;  relative  to  which  a 
passage  may  be  found  in  Joseph.  A.  J.  xix.  9, 
2.  Concerning  the  Roman  legion  and  its 
camp,  there  is  a  noted  passage  in  Dio  LV. 
p.  56,  in  which  Lipsius,  Breitinger,  and  other 
learned  men,  find  great  difficulty ;  see  Reimar's 
note  on  the  passage.  Schwartz  of  Altorf  has 
published  a  tract  on  the  Italian  and  Augustan 


334         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

bands.  The  other  military  matters,  such  as 
arms,  watches,  &c.  mentioned  in  the  New 
Testament,  are  explained  sufficiently  in  the 
common  books  of  antiquities. 

XCIX.  To  provincial  affairs  belong  also 
the  census^  and  other  taxes,  paid  either  into  the 
public  treasury,  or  into  the  Emperor's  privy- 
purse,  which  we  have  already  mentioned.  In 
the  greater  provinces  the  collection  was  super- 
intended by  qusestors  or  procurators,  the  for- 
mer of  whom  made  their  payments  to  the  trea- 
sury, the  latter  to  the  privy-purse;  but  in 
Judea  the  whole  matter  was  managed  by  the 
procurator.  In  the  New  Testament  both 
taxes  and  duties  are  mentioned,  and  these  have 
been  already  noticed ;  but  respecting  the  cen- 
sus, it  may  be  necessary  to  say  something 
more  in  this  place.  We  have  explained  the 
nature  of  the  census  preparatory  to  the  levying 
of  tribute,  the  name  of  census  being  also  ap- 
plied to  the  tribute  itself;  for,  as  Tacitus  i.  2, 
speaks  of  trihuta  aut  vectigalia,  so  Matt.  xvii. 
25,  distinguishes  between  riXn  75  xrivcsog.  To 
what  has  been  said  on  this  head,  the  student 
may  2iM  Lipsius'  Exc.  K.  on  Tacit,  Ann,  i.  33, 
though  indeed  there  is  no  difficulty  or  doubt 
in  this  matter.  Some  learned  men,  however, 
are  of  opinion,  that  another  census  is  mention- 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.   335 

ed  in  the  New  Testament,  a  census  in  which 
there  was  no  other  object  than  to  ascertain  the 
numbers  of  the  people,  and  that  such  was  the 
census  or  enrolment  which  brought  Joseph 
and  Mary  to  Jerusalem,  Luke  ii.  1 ;  and  this 
opinion  has,  with  much  probability,  been  de- 
fended by  Perizonius,  in  his  treatise  de  Augusta 
orbis  terr,  descriptione.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
may  be  argued,  that  there  is  no  acknowledged 
instance  of  such  a  census  being  taken  in  a 
province,  much  less  in  an  allied  kingdom  as 
Judea  then  was ;  and  if  such  a  census  could  be 
taken  in  Herod's  kingdom,  there  is  no  addi- 
tional difficulty  in  supposing  that  a  tax  also 
could  be  levied,  either  on  the  precedent  given 
by  Pompey,  or  by  express  stipulation  with 
Herod.  On  this  matter,  however,  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  say  anything  with  certainty. 

C.  There  are  also  in  the  New  Testament 
notices  of  other  Roman  matters,  as  their  co- 
lonies,  coins,  punishments,  &c.  some  of  which  we 
have  already  mentioned,  and  others,  as  being 
sufficiently  known  to  all  scholars,  we  have 
omitted.  Thus,  the  nature  and  privileges  of 
Roman  citizenship,  alluded  to  by  St.  Paul  in 
the  Acts,  are  so  well  known,  that  no  one  can 
be  in  any  difficulty  respecting  them.  The 
question,  however,  whence  Paul,  or  his  father, 


3-3G  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

or  his  ancestors,  attained  the  right  of  citizen- 
ship, cannot  so  easily  be  answered.  It  appears, 
however,  from  Cicero,  in  Verrem,  that  the 
later  Roman  generals  (Imperatores),  were  in 
the  habit  of  admitting  to  the  citizenship  in- 
habitants of  the  provinces,  either  for  services 
rendered  to  the  state,  or  from  their  own  par- 
tialities, or  for  eminence  of  any  kind.  For 
any  of  these  causes,  the  citizenship  may  have 
been  bestowed  upon  some  ancestor  of  St. 
Paul."^ 

^  [A  good  deal  of  information  respecting  the  admission  of 
foreigners  to  the  citizenship  may  also  be  found  in  the  Orat. 
pro  Archia.  See  especially  chap.  v.  where  we  find  that 
Ennius  the  poet  was  thus  enfranchized  :  and  chap.  vi.  where 
it  is  noticed  that  Pompey  conferred  the  citizenship  nx  an 
assembly  of  the  army  upon  Theophanes  a  Mitylenaean ;  and 
that  Sylla  had  conferred  it  upon  many  Spanish  and  Gallic 
poets.  As  the  Roman  commanders  were  more  devoted 
rebus  agendis  than  to  letters,  we  may  reasonably  conclude 
that  if  many  foreigners  were  admitted  citizens  on  account  of 
their  poetical  talents,  many  more  must  have  been  admitted 
for  their  useful  services.] 

CI.  Many  Greek  rites  and  customs  must  of 
course  be  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament ; 
since,  in  the  Acts,  many  events  are  mentioned 
which  happened  in  Greek  cities,  and  most  of 
the  epistles  were  written  to  churches,  whose 
members  were    Greek   citizens.     The   inter- 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.         337 

preter  of  the  New  Testament  ought,  there- 
fore to  be  well  acquainted  with  the  religion, 
the  magistrates,  the  public  and  domestic  habits 
of  the  Greeks.  A  knowledo:e  of  their  relio^ious 
opinions  and  practices  will  throw  light  upon 
such  passages  as  Acts  xix.  35,  where  Ephesus 
is  said  to  be  vsojzo^og  of  Diana,  and  where  the 
statue  of  Diana  is  said  to  be  dioTrsrlg.  Such 
knowledge  will  also  apply  to  the  explanation 
of  Acts  xvii.  23,  and  xiv.  12,  and  also  the 
texts  which  speak  of  the  absurdity  of  heathen 
idolatry,  as  Acts  xvii.  16,  Rom.  i.,  Eph.  ii.  1, 
&c.,  and  the  texts  relating  to  l/^wXo^i/ra,  or 
meats  sacrificed  to  idols.  As  points  to  be  il- 
lustrated by  this  knowledge,  we  may  also  men- 
tion t'he  Asiarchae,  Acts  xix.  31,  and  y^a/x^arsTg 
id.  35,  of  whom  Valesius  has  written  ad  Euseb, 
iv.  15.  liubenius  de  Urhihus  Neocoris^  Span- 
heim  de  usu  et  prcestantia  numismatum,  Diss, 
ix.  §  4 ;  also  the  Athenian  Areopagites,  Acts 
xvii.  34.® 


*  [  Wesseling  has  a  treatise  on  the  Asiarchs,  Utrecht  1753. 
Tertullian,  de  SpectacuHs,  speaks  of  them  under  the  name 
of  Prcesides  sacerdotales.'\ 

CII.  There  are  some  passages  in  Scripture, 
to  the  right  understanding  of  which  a  knovv- 


338        USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

ledge  of  the  sacrificial  rites  of  the  Greeks  may- 
be useful,  as  Acts  xiv.  13,  where  ruv^oi  xai 
(TTSfc/Mara  occur  in  the  sense  of  hulls  adorned 
with  garlands.  To  the  same  class  some  are 
disposed  to  refer  rtr^ayj/iyjciMvay  Hebr.  iv.  13, 
which,  however,  may,  with  greater  probabi- 
lity, be  referred  to  the  dragging  of  the  bodies 
of  criminals  through  the  streets.  See  Sue- 
tonius' Vitell.  xvii.  compare  1  Cor.  iv.  9.  In 
what  sense  St.  Paul  calls  himself  rrs^ixd^a^fia 
and  Ts^Z-v^^/xa,  1  Cor.  iv.  13,  may  be  explained 
from  the  manner  of  oifering  piacular  sacrifices, 
especially  human  sacrifices,  among  the  Greeks  : 
this  subject  has  been  well  illustrated  by  L. 
Bos,  in  his  Exerc.  Philol.  ad  N.  T.  on  the 
text. 

cm.  Every  thing  relative  to  the  Coins 
current  in  the  first  century  ought  to  be  tho- 
roughly known  to  the  interpreter;  because,  in 
speaking  of  money,  the  sacred  writers  gene- 
rally use  Greek  terms,  and  the  Hebrew  money 
ought  to  be  explained  by  a  comparison  with 
the  Greek,  as  w^e  have  before  shown.  For, 
not  to  speak  of  the  drachma,  wliich  we  know 
corresponds  with  the  Roman  denarius,  and 
with  the  quarter  of  a  Hebrew  shekel,  or  of  the 
stater,  which  we  have  mentioned  before;  we 
may  notice  "kiirru,  Mark  xii.  42,  which  Grono- 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.    339 

vius  de  Sestert,  p.  91,  shows  to  have  been  some- 
times used  by  the  Greeks  as  synonymous  with 
drachma.  That  text,  however,  is  one  of  diffi- 
cult interpretation  to  those  who  are  not  sa- 
tisfied with  the  ordinary  versions  of  it.  In 
Acts  xix.  19,  we  find  doyv^m  'jrhrs  fj^v^iddsg  :  this, 
it  is  clear,  must  be  interpreted  according  to 
the  Greek  notation,  not  according  to  the  He- 
brew, as  Hammond  supposes ;  this  appears 
both  from  the  nature  of  the  transaction  and 
from  the  place ;  that  is,  by  doyv^jou  we  must 
understand  drachmas.  For  similar  reasons  the 
interpreter  ought  to  be  acquainted  with  the 
weights  and  measures  of  the  Greeks.  For  the 
talent  and  mi?ia  are  mentioned  in  the  Gospels  ; 
but  of  these,  and  the  iJ^zronr-hi,  John  ii.  6,  we 
have  already  spoken. 

CIV.  The  Apostle  Paul  often  draws  images 
from  the  armour  of  the  Greeks,  as  in  the  beau- 
tiful passage  Eph.  vi.  11,  from  t\\Q\Y  gymnastic 
exercises,  as  in  Phil.  iii.  12,  and  1  Cor.  ix.  24; 
and  of  course  such  passages  can  be  explained 
only  by  one  who  is  acquainted  with  tliese 
matters.  'Tcrojvr/a^s/v  in  1  Cor.  ix.  27  is  well 
illustrated  by  L,  Bos,  in  his  Exerc.  Phil,  on 
the  text.  See  Zornius  ad  excerptum  Rhenferdii 
in  Bihl  Antiqu.  Exeget.  p.  866,  seq.* 


340  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

'  [The  translator  is  unable  to  explain  the  references  here, 
the  Latin  stands  thus,  ro  y^r^-r/a^s/v  ibi  pulchre  illustrat 
L.  Bos.  ad  h.  1.  et  totum  illud,  p.  26,  27.  Zornius  ad  ex- 
cerptum  Rhenferdii  in  Bill.  Antiqu.  Exeget.  p.  866,  seq.] 

CV.  It  will  be  useful  to  know  the  customs 
of  the  Greeks  with  respect  to  public  harangues^ 
in  order  to  understand  the  use  made  of  the 
theatre  in  this  matter,  Acts  xix.  31,  and  in 
another  text,  xii.  21,  where  Herod  is  described 
as  haranguing  the  Ceesarean  populace.  On 
this  subject  the  student  may  consult  llaids- 
chius  in  his  Disputation  on  this  text,  or  Jo- 
sephus'  account  of  the  same  event.  The  naval 
affairs  of  the  Greeks  ought  also  to  be  studied, 
in  order  to  throw  light  upon  the  descriptions 
of  St.  Paul's  voyages,  especially  upon  Acts 
xxvii.  16,  17,  28,  29,  30,  &c.  and  xxviii.  11, 
which  have  been  well  illustrated  by  Scaliger 
ad  Euseh.  p.  40,  and  still  better  by  Albertus 
on  the  several  passages."  But  above  all,  ought 
the  student  to  consult  Scheffer's  work,  de  re 
Navali  Veterum^  who  has  treated  this  subject 
with  great  accuracy.  There  are  also  other 
smaller  points  of  Greek  antiquity  which  ought 
to  be  known,  but  which  it  is  needless  to  par- 
ticularize here. 

"  \^J.  Alberti  in  his  Observationes  Philologicae  in  sacros 
N.  Foederis  hbros.  Lugd.  Bat.  1725.] 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  341 

CVI.  I  have  mentioned  the  foregoing  points, 
that  the  student  may  see  how  many  portions 
of  the  sacred  books  there  are,  which  cannot  be 
satisfactorily  explained  without  a  competent 
acquaintance  with  Greek  and  Latin  literature. 
And  there  are  other  reasons  why  these  branches 
of  knowledge,  together  with  those  enumerated 
in  the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  should  again 
and  again  be  recommended. 

CVII.  Forif  those  who  employ  themselves  on 
the  interpretation  of  Greek  and  Latin  authors 
do  not  fear  to  examine  every  point  down  to  the 
very  minutiae  with  scrupulous  accuracy,  so  as  to 
leave  nothing  obscure,  either  in  the  matter  or 
phraseology,  and  are  praised  for  their  dili- 
gence in  so  doing ;  it  must  certainly  be  dis- 
graceful to  an  interpreter  of  Scripture  to  with- 
hold a  similar  care  from  the  study  of  the 
sacred  books,  and  to  excuse  his  indolence  or 
ignorance  by  a  pretence  that  such  accurate 
knowledge  of  the  sense  of  Scripture  is  of  no 
use  to  the  promotion  of  religious  knowledge. 

CVin.  It  must  also  be  kept  in  mind,  that 
the  human  intellect  is,  in  every  branch  of  know- 
ledge, desirous  of  something  more  than  what 
is  absolutely  necessary  ;  and  looks  about  for 
something  either  more  extensive  or  more  re- 
condite on  which  to  exercise  its  ingenuity  and 


342         USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

diligence.  It  will,  therefore,  be  always  safest 
for  an  interpreter  to  devote  himself  to  the 
course  which  has  been  recommended,  lest  he 
should  be  led  aside  into  metaphysical  triflings, 
and  all  the  follies  into  which  men  who  approach 
the  interpretation  of  Scripture  without  accu- 
rate scholarship,  are  todapt  to  fall.  Nothing 
but  the  prevalent  ignorance  and  contempt  for 
sound  learning  produced  in  the  middle  ages 
the  puerile  fancies  of  the  scholastic  divines ; 
and  even  now  produces  follies  equally  con- 
temptible and  pernicious.* 

^  [Two  moral  causes  may  be  mentioned,  which  render 
even  acute  judgment  and  accurate  scliolarship  unavailing  to 
the  interpretation  of  Scripture.  The  first  is  intellectual 
pride,  whereby  the  interpreter  set*  up  his  own  judgment  of 
propriety  above  the  declarations  of  inspired  writers  ;  and 
next  spiritual  pride,  ivhereby  the  interpreter  imagines  that 
he  is  at  liberty  to  affix  what  sense  he  pleases  to  a  text,  and 
that  his  exposition  is  to  be  received  as  something  oracular, 
if  not  as  the  absolute  dictate  of  inspiration.  Of  the  former 
error  the  Unitarian  expositors  Priestley,  Belsham,  and  the 
editors  of  the  Improved  Version,  are  lamentable  instances  ; 
of  the  latter,  few  persons  conversant  with  what  is  called  the 
religious  world,  can  in  our  day  be  at  a  loss  for  examples. 
The  translator  has  been  assured,  in  a  tone  that  forbade  all 
appeal  either  to  logic  or  to  grammar,  that  the  clause,  "  For- 
give  tis  our  trespasses,"  meant,  give  us  an  assurance  that 
our  sins  are  forgiven  ;  and  that  the  meaning  of,  "  why  will 
ye  die,  O  house  of  Israel  ?"  was  this,  why,  O  Christians  ! 
will  ye  not  live  up  to  an  enjoyment  of  your  privileges  ?] 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION.  343 

CIX.  The  most  important  consideration 
however  is,  that  without  a  knowledge  of  the 
subjects  alluded  to  in  the  preceding  sections, 
the  word  of  God  will  be  forced  and  perverted 
in  the  most  ridiculous  manner.  In  reference 
to  the  single  subject  of  our  Lord's  passion,  all 
who  know  the  subject  must  be  aware,  that 
many  interpreters  have  trifled,  and  that  some 
still  trifle  very  absurdly.  And  indeed  the 
commentaries  of  the  earlier  interpreters  are 
full  of  errors  arising  from  ignorance  of  history, 
a,ntiquities,  and  languages.  The  duty  of 
guarding  against  such  errors  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  Scripture,  must  be  allowed  by  every 
one. 

ex.  The  application  of  antiquarian  and 
grammatical  knowledge  to  the  interpretation 
of  the  New  Testament,  must  be  accompanied 
with  some  caution.  For,  in  the  first  place,  we 
must  be  careful  not  to  rely  upon  such  know- 
ledge exclusively,  nor  to  make  a  vain  shew  of 
it.  Some  interpreters  have  erred  in  this  w^ay, 
whose  sole  object  has  been  to  illustrate  words 
and  phrases  in  the  New  Testament,  by  similar 
words  and  phrases  in  the  classical  Greek 
authors ;  and  who  expend  all  their  diligence 
in  hunting  after  such  passages ;  which  class  of 
interpreters  have  already  been  noticed  in  chap. 


314  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

ix.  §  48.  Their  common  practice  is  to  force 
the  words  of  Scripture  into  accordance  with 
their  classical  authorities,  or  else  to  force  these 
authorities  from  their  proper  meaning  into  an 
apparent  harmony  with  the  texts  they  are 
brought  to  illustrate.  The  class  of  books  call- 
ed Philological  Observations  from  the  Greek 
writers,  are  full  of  this  kind  of  folly ;  which 
ought  carefully  to  be  avoided  by  the  interpre- 
ter. It  is  his  duty  not  to  undervalue  Latin 
and  Greek  literature  in  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  but  at  the  same  time  to  use  it  with 
moderation  and  judgment;  under  a  conviction 
that  more  of  useful  illustration  may  be  drawn 
from  a  comparison  of  the  original  Hebrew  of 
the  Old  Testament  with  the  Septuagint  ver- 
sion, than  from  all  other  books  together.  In 
the  application  of  antiquarian  knowledge  he 
must  be  careful  not  to  obtrude  it  unseasonably, 
and  thus  to  elicit  an  imaginary  sense ;  nor,  on 
the  other  hand,  to  imagine  ancient  rites  and 
customs  from  expressions  imperfectly  under- 
stood, of  which  error  many  examples  may  be 
found  in  philological  treatises ;  both  those  that 
relate  to  the  New  Testament,  and  those  which 
relate  to  profane  authors.  For  we  have  al- 
ready warned  the  student  that  all  this  know- 
ledge ought  to  be  sure  and  accurate,  that  is  to 


USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATIONT.  345 

say,  that  it  ought  to  be  drawn  from  original 
sources.  When  inaccurate  it  does  more  harm 
than  good. 

CXI.  Lest  we  should  seem  to  have  omitted 
any  point  of  ancient  history,  it  may  be  right 
in  this  place  to  mention  Philosophy^  the  appli- 
cation of  which  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
New  Testament,  has  been  examined  in  a  se- 
parate treatise  by  Walchiiis  of  Jena.  But  great 
caution  must  be  used  in  this  matter.  In  the 
first  place,  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should 
study  the  opinions  of  the  Stoics  and  Epicu- 
reans, merely  because  these  two  sects  are 
casually  mentioned  in  the  Acts :  nor  does  the 
philosophy  frequently  mentioned  by  St.  Paul 
apply  to  these.  Some,  however,  think  that  in 
the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  there  are  allusions  to 
an  eastern  system  of  philosophy  out  of  which 
the  Gnostics  drew  their  system ;  and  conse- 
quently Hammond  and  others  explain  many 
texts  by  a  reference  to  the  opinions  of  the 
Gnostics.  It  is  well  known,  however,  that  the 
Gnostics  with  their  various  branches,  were  pos- 
terior to  the  Apostolic  age  -^  and  that  -^rohwu- 
{log  yi/w(r/5,  1  Tim.  vi.  20,  must  be  referred  to 
somethinir  else  than  Jewish  doo-mas.  And 
with  respect  to  those  texts  in  which  these  in- 
terpreters imagine  that  that  they  detect  allu- 


346  USE  OF  GENERAL  INFORMATION. 

sions  to  the  Gnostic  dogmas,  I  fear  tliey  only 
shew  their  own  ignorance  of  the  Apostolic 
diction.  Thus,  for  example,  in  Heb.  i.  2,  in 
the  words,  dt'  ov  zal  rovg  diuvag  irotTjgB,  they  ima- 
gine that  the  Apostle  is  alluding  to  the  ^ons 
of  the  Gnostics ;  whereas  it  is  merely  a  He- 
braism expressing  the  creation  of  the  world, 
and  was  so  understood  by  all  the  ancients. 
We  must  be  careful,  therefore,  in  such  matters, 
not  to  be  misled  by  a  shew  of  recondite  learn- 
ing, the  very  depth  of  which  ought  to  render 
it  more  suspected :  and,  upon  the  whole,  we 
must  be  careful,  lest  by  a  misapplication  of 
our  knowledge,  we  render  it  rather  an  ob- 
stacle than  an  aid  to  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture. 

y  [The  reader  may  find  the  opinion  of  Ernesti  developed 
in  C  C.  Tittman's  Tract,  de  Vestiglis  Gnosticorum  in  N. 
T.frustm  qucesitis,  Lips.  1773.  But  unless  he  has  a  very 
unusual  degree  of  leisure,  he  v/ill  do  well  not  to  plunge 
deeply  into  this  very  difficult  subject.] 


LIST  OF  TEXTS  ILLUSTRATED. 


Matthew. 

Acts 

Chap 

Ver. 

Vol.    Page. 

Chap 

Ver. 

Vol. 

Page. 

iv. 

15. 

ii.     28G 

iii. 

12. 

ii. 

127 

V. 

21. 

ii.     181 

vii. 

6. 

i. 

183 

yi. 

11. 

ii.     Ill- 

-208 

vii. 

14. 

i. 

182 

ix. 

24. 

i.     167 

xix. 

31. 

i. 

68 

xiv. 

3. 

ii.     265 

xiii. 

48. 

ii. 

181 

xiv. 

25. 

i.       19 

xvi. 

20. 

ii. 

271 

XV. 

24. 

ii.     286 

xvii. 

8. 

i. 

110 

xxvi 

.28. 

i.     146—149 

xix. 

28. 

ii. 

272 

XX. 

2. 

ii. 

268 

Mark. 

XX. 

12. 

i. 

68 

vi. 

45.  ii.     267 

Romans. 

Luke. 

V.    15—19.        i. 

58 

.. 

2. 

j   i.    173- 

-174 

vi. 

3. 

82 

11. 

i  ii.     293 

vi. 

5. 

85 

iii. 

1. 

ii.     291 

viii. 

1. 

82 

iii. 

2. 

ii.     297 

viii. 

20. 

ii. 

21 

XV. 

11. 

seq.     i.     154     157 

viii. 

24. 

71 

viii. 

30. 

ii. 

239 

John. 

xi. 

1. 

198 

i. 

1. 

ii.     240 

xi. 

8. 

46 

i. 

28. 

ii.       94 

xii. 

1. 

153 

... 

3. 

J  i.     136 

xii. 

6. 

127—128 

111. 

Iii.    179 

xiii. 

14. 

i. 

151 

iii. 

6- 

-8.      i.     191 

XV. 

19. 

ii. 

268 

ix. 

2. 

ii.     326 

X. 

30. 

ii.     194 

1  Corinthians. 

xix. 

14. 

i.    171 

i. 

17. 

i. 

109 

xix. 

23. 

ii.     319 

iii. 

4. 

ii. 

14—15 

348 


LIST  OF  TEXTS  ILLUSTRATED. 


Chap.  Ver.        Vol.      Page, 
iv.  3—4.             i.     168 
vii.      1.          ii.      70 
vii.      5.            i.     162 
ix.        5.             i.     107 

xi. 

XV. 

'»       {ii.  -i'o 

51.           ii.     131 

2  Corinthians 

vi. 

viii. 

xi. 

6.         i.      68 
19.       ii.       81 
32.       ii.     301 

Galatians. 

iii. 
iii. 

V. 

17.            i.     183 
27.            i.     151 
12.           ii.     Ill 

Epiiesians. 

iii. 
iv. 

V. 
V. 

18.          ii.     257 
9.            i.       87 
26.           i.       20 
32.         ii.       82 

COLOSSIANS. 
Chap.  Ver.         Vol.     Page, 
i.        16.  ii.     254 

ii.       23.  ii.     112 

2  Timothy. 
ii.         18.  i.     71 

Hebrews. 
ix.     20.  i.     146 

James. 
i.  1.  ii.     286 

1  Peter. 
ii.         9.  ii.     160 
V.       13.  ii.     285 

2  Peter. 

i.  6.  i.     68 

i.  10.  i.     85 


2. 


John. 
i.     47—8 


Revelations. 
2.  i.      87 


FINIS. 


J,  THOMSON,  PRINTER,  MILNE  SQUARE. 


1    1012  01145  3646 
DATE  DUE 


Fi$^Bm 

La 

1 

Jtfft 

ti^i^ 

*1lf  ■ 

1^**^ 

GAYLORD 

PRINTEDINU    S    A. 

^  ® 


